Yours is an extreme case of the greatest of the problems plaguing the so-called profession.

The more students one reaches, the less one is respected. Work hard on four courses, be penalized. Write a book three people will read: six figures.

Francofou, at 7:10 am EDT on October 26, 2007

April Fools!

Is this a joke? I know that IHE sometimes seems to enjoy yanking our professorial chains. Could this be one of those times? For Professor Wunderland’s sake, I sure hope so.

Let’s pretend we’re all sitting around the faculty lunchroom and someone says, “Hey, let’s design the Assistant Professor from Hell.” A few minutes of brainstorming later, and we arrive at the following consensus list of traits:

1. Self-Impressed 2. Self-Pitying 3. Contemptuous of Colleagues 4. Contemptuous of Students 5. Possessed of a Martyr Complex6. Impervious to Contructive Criticism

Well, let’s see...

1. “...I was coming out of University of the Elite...” Check!

2. “[T]hey made me an early offer that didn’t allow me to explore the nine other schools with which I had interviews. Check!

3. Professors “Fuddydud...Queenbee... Bullykid...Slackjob". Check!

4. “Sadly, many of the students also think they win in this scenario. They get good grades with little work.” Check!

5. “It was exactly that I was exceeding expectations that was the trouble, especially in my teaching.” Check!

6. “I couldn’t fathom what she meant at first. I pressed her for explanations and examples, but got only vague and unsatisfying answers.” Check!

If Professor Wunderland really exists, I would propose one modest suggestion to her. Find a friend or colleague you trust to give you honest feedback, and ask him/her to read the article you wrote for IHE. I think she’ll be surprised to learn the negative impact her words are having on other people. And if she takes these lessons to heart, maybe she can escape from Lewis Carroll’s world and join the rest of us in the land of reality.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 8:20 am EDT on October 26, 2007

Alison Wunderland

I have taught at five different universities in the U.S. (and received tenure at two), and at none of them would an assistant prof be denied tenure for being too good. Granted, none of them were small liberal arts colleges like the one described here, but I find it hard to believe that someone who publishes nine articles in her first three years, receives five awards for her dissertation, and has great teaching evaluations would be in danger of not receiving tenure at a 4-4 teaching institution. My conclusion: Either this piece is full of exaggeration and distortion, or the author is leaving some major negative out of her description regarding her behavior with her colleagues—or both. —Thema D’Hatter, Ph.D.

Edwin Duncan, at 8:40 am EDT on October 26, 2007

not buying it

I think E. Duncan has this right. I’ve spent almost two decades at a school not unlike the one Prof. Wunderland describes (we have a 3-3 load). It is absolutely inconceivable to me that if the facts are what she says they are that she would get denied tenure here. In fact, she’d be considered a superstar and role model. We might be concerned that she’s neglected to have a life outside of work, but that’s about it.

Either her department was the worst bunch of lazy teachers and jealous scholars ever assembled in one place, or she has left out some really important negatives. As UT says, the attitude that oozes out of this article might well be part of the problem.

Steven Horwitz, at 9:30 am EDT on October 26, 2007

Astute comment

I’ve had a similar experience and believe that the article illustrates the problem young, new faculty encounter. I would argue that the tenured commenters are the whiners because they do not want to change the way they teach. The tenured faculty do not appreciate new graduates showing them up by working “too hard".

Mary B., at 10:15 am EDT on October 26, 2007

Real World, Paging Alison Wunderland

Ahem, guess what Dr. Wunderland? Being a professor is a job. Like all jobs, it comes with having to play office politics, finesse and cultivate people a little and being flexible enough to fit their mold if you want to remain employed. Having a doctorate does not exempt you from the laws of difficult bosses, disappointing job reviews and defending your approach to your work. Being this self-righteous would never fly in any other professional environment (indeed, it doesn’t fly down the hill here in the professional administrative offices of a university) so why should it in academia?

A.Elliott, at 12:50 pm EDT on October 26, 2007

re: Is this Real? Alas, Yes

The problems described by “Prof. Wunderkind” seem all too likely to be real, as I’ve heard very similar stories over the years. For example, a friend of mine who publishes more than anybody else and who is a terrific teacher besides was warned by her chair that she was in danger of not getting tenured. Why? Because she had just been awarded an NEH grant, and this seemed to indicate that “she was not truly dedicated to teaching.” My suggestion is for “Prof. Wunderkind” to jump ship, which is exactly what my friend did. She’s now at a terrific institution that values her teaching, her research, and, basically, her. I hope the same for the author of this piece.

One further suggestion: people might want to look up Terry Caesar’s article, “On Teaching at a Second-Rate Institution.” It covers some of the same ground, and is, I think, something of a masterpiece.

Peter C. Herman, Prof. at SDSU, at 12:55 pm EDT on October 26, 2007

Don’t jump to conclusions

I don’t think Alison said she was actually denied tenure. And an editor could have made up the title “‘Too Good’ for Tenure?” But I bet Alison wasn’t expecting such withering derision. Sheesh.

Jay Bernstein, at 1:00 pm EDT on October 26, 2007

Experience

“We don’t believe in rheumatism and true love until after the first attack.” — Marie Ebner Von Eschenbach

I have seen situations comparable to “Alison Wnderland"’s in a few environments. Honestly, I never would have believed it myself until I saw it. Career Services at Harvard warned us of the “H-Effect” — when people consider you “too good” to work in their schools — and it’s a real thing, not just in hiring. I’ve seen people who taught with rigor in departments with movie-showing, easy-testing colleagues get obliterated on teaching evaluations. I’ve seen productive scholars given nasty peer evaluations from unproductive colleagues: productivity is threatening, because many tenured faculty seem to get away without publishing because they are “too busy,” but productive, rigorous new colleagues threaten that excuse.

It goes against everything I’ve ever believed about how academics should evaluate and treat their colleagues, and I wouldn’t have believed it until I saw it myself.

Jonathan Dresner, at 3:31 pm EDT on October 26, 2007

more

Ok, I’ll say it again: in nearly 20 years at a school like the one described, I have never been privy to conversations like the ones described here, where a colleague was told either that he/she was working too hard or insufficiently dedicated to teaching because he/she had an excellent research record AND strong course evals.

What doesn’t make sense about this to me is that her course evals appear to be strong. And any decent review process is going to take student complaints about rigor etc to be compliments not criticisms, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary such as completely unrealistic expectations in terms of reading load.

If this is true, I think the fault, as I noted earlier, lies with her colleagues. From where I sit, she did all the right things. Perhaps I simply cannot believe, as I’ve never seen it here, that a department would be so short-sighted and, apparently, jealous, as to engage in that kind of behavior, no matter the gender of the junior person.

My disbelief may be a product of my environment, but again, I’ve never seen anything like this here and I can think of several examples of tenured men and women here who fit this profile fairly closely.

Steven Horwitz, at 3:31 pm EDT on October 26, 2007

I know people say they haven’t seen departments where someone can do all the right things and still be ejected by their colleagues. Just because you haven’t seen them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. And I’m not even saying such colleagues are mean or petty-minded or what have you. It’s just when an individual doesn’t mesh with the culture of an institution, the institution isn’t going to change, and that individual is likely to be cut loose. I’m sure the colleagues in question believe they’re acting in Alison’s best interests and trying to help her fit in, but it’s kind of like if you have to be told the price, you can’t afford it — if you have to be told how to fit in, you probably never will.

I wouldn’t have thought such irrational kinds of factors could work out this way until I actually saw it happen. Relativism rules; what is “right” is only “right” in the context of one’s own institution.

yet another anonymous type, at 4:40 pm EDT on October 26, 2007

URL for Terry Caesar’s article (subscription req.)

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/symploke/v007/7.1-2caesar.html

I’ve got friends like the author. They forgot Bureaucracy Rule No. 1: don’t cause waves, just go along. Hand out A-grades like there was no tomorrow. No one really cares — it’s a bureaucracy, remember?

Unapologetically Demanding, at 6:35 pm EDT on October 26, 2007

I’ve seen similar cases to what A.W. describes, and more than just a few times. I think one way to expain this is through the current attitude towards student course and instructor evaluations. Students are bitterly resentful and hypercritical of professors with high standards and rigorous, uninflated grading. Administrators don’t like this: it makes them and their institution look bad to students and their parents—i.e. “customers", and they don’t like the idea that students might not enroll in vast numbers for these professsors’ courses. Colleagues don’t like profs. who make them look lax or unproductive; perhaps they feel guilty for being too “easy". The untenured will have a strong interest in keeping standards of performance for tenure as low as possible to ensure their own tenuring. They don’t want a trouble-maker with higher standards to make them look bad.

As long as mediocre students are allowed to set the standards with their evaluations and “pick a prof,” and as long as administrators treat them as valued customers and instructors as salesmen, the pathetic situation of AW and similar instructors will continue.

Pico, at 9:25 pm EDT on October 26, 2007

Wonderland, Indeed

Interesting how the last few posters have managed to turn this article and the comments into an attack on tenure and on the tenured, who are lazy and arrogant and all the rest. Hogwash. We have several young faculty in my department — just one case, I realize — and all we do is celebrate them for their achievements. I have been delighted and stimulated by their presence. There may in fact be departments like the one Prof. Wonderland describes, but I have going on three decades of experience in this biz and I haven’t seen one, though of course I have seen my share of lazy academics, just as I have seen my share of lazy bank mamagers, short-order cooks, and office workers. I have also seen shallow and arrogant faculty like Prof. Wunderland. And they always wunder why nobody likes them.

Joseph Duemer, Professor at Clarkson University, at 11:05 pm EDT on October 26, 2007

I agree that “fit” is a likeability criteria and isn’t appropriate to the tenure review process. I expected from the first half of this article the author would have gotten the boot for that reason. Why the sudden switch in the last part of the article in favor of research & publications? Anyway, I apologize for not being a coward and using my name.

Cynthia Cameros, at 12:20 am EDT on October 28, 2007

Right, Prof. Ed, just hire another administrator / consultant & that will solve the problem. Also, you know, most of the sting is taken out of ad hominem comments when the author of the piece has chosen to write under a pseudonym which is itself an ad hominem attack on her colleagues, to whom she gives names that are themselves insults. Isn’t it time for you to get back to the encounter session now, Ed?

Ann Arc, at 10:45 am EDT on October 28, 2007

Where’s the data?

As usual — the arts, humanities, & social science types have broken an IHE piece into a “I read books for 25+ years, so I’m right and everyone else is wrong.”

That, instead of hard questions such as:

How many TT asst. profs. are hired?

How many leave after the first year?

Second year? Third year? Before making tenure?

Public v. private?

Why do they leave?

What, if any, effect does this have on declining test scores and overall life performance?

Russ, at 5:00 am EDT on October 29, 2007

In the Backwater swirling

I see that a “Backwater Student” has arrived, like Gandalf the White, to salvage the reputation of Alison Wonderland. Oh dear. Apparently our anonymous professor isn’t so anonymous after all. I had sympathy with AW’s story. I read it as a plausible account of one woman’s nightmare...until I read the comment from BS (ha!). If AW is being slagged off in front of her students, then one would assume that she has a good grievance to file. If AW is confiding in her students about the problems that she is facing (and encouraging them to post on here), it seems to me that she is playing the office politics game very poorly. If BS is AW in disguise, then that is just pathetic.

Truthiness, at 10:45 am EDT on October 29, 2007

Double Standard

I would like to comment on the double standard that is obvious from the comments above. When a woman writes an article stating her accomplishments and commenting on the obstacles she is facing, she is branded “self-impressed", “self-righteous", and “whiny” and “arrogant". Why do I imagine that if a man wrote this article, people would be lining up to congratulate his accomplishments and criticizing the school for alienating him?

Jaci, at 11:40 am EDT on October 29, 2007

From the Author

Well, this has indeed been an interesting exchange. Much has been revealed about the tone and tenor of academics. I feel at this point as though I should say a few words by way of explanation and, if it will be forgiven, in my defense. First of all, the story is true. The facts are as presented and the quotations verbatim. I have no doubt my department would have given a very different picture from mine, and one that would have comported with many of the most vitriolic invectives here. Where I feel the most need to defend myself is from the truly vicious and unjust attacks on my character. If some posters had put aside their defensiveness (as though I were attacking them!) and read more closely, they would have seen clear language that indicated my (initial) respect for my colleagues (“I believed that I would need to prove myself to my colleagues.”), my humility at being a junior member (“I felt I had to catch up with my colleagues.”), my attempts to fit in (“I began searching my mind for what I could possibly be doing wrong. I approached senior colleagues for advice.”), and my fear, confusion, and panic at the lack of mentoring and threatening behavior. They don’t give any concrete reason for why they have found me arrogant, self-righteous, or whiny, why they presume my colleagues and students didn’t like me personally (they are wrong on both counts), so I must suppose that it is because I enumerated my credentials and achievements, which, if they would recall, I believed to be deficient. But this sort of singing one’s own praises is what every junior faculty member is expected to do ad nauseum in order to gain promotion and tenure. It is a hateful process, but one we are forced to perform at the behest of our senior colleagues and the administration. So why is it so offensive here? Because of the contrast with my senior colleagues? Moreover, how else could I have described my situation clearly and explained why my chair said my work was “too good”? She said it, not me; and the claim was ridiculous. I don’t believe I need to justify my use of pseudonyms – my critics have done that for me. But to be clear, my reason for the colorful names was both to be descriptive and, admittedly, to release through humor the stress I had experienced. Neither do I make any apologies for my candor with some students. They are adults and they have a right to know the factors that influence their educations. Finally, I will say that I am anything but hostile to tenure or my tenured colleagues in general. In fact, I believe it is proof that I am not a “loser” that, if readers would note my by-line, I have been hired at a better institution in a professional and collegial department. My new colleagues celebrate my achievements, encourage me further, and propose to give me tenure early. The relief I now experience overwhelms me; for the first time I am able to say I love my job. I am deeply sad to have left a teaching position for one that is primarily research, but I did not have a choice. I refuse to compromise my commitment to both high academic standards for the sake of conformity. If this wins me the odium and derision of members of the broader academic community, that is even sadder.

A.W., at 1:25 pm EDT on October 29, 2007

Re: Professor Wunderland

I am delighted that Professor Wunderland has found a job more suitable to her talents. It is unclear, however, why she felt the need to scorch the earth and salt the ashes on the way out the door of her old institution. In any event, I hope the humiliation of her former colleagues (who will, if she is telling the truth, surely recognize themselves in this article) is sufficient compensation for whatever indignities she believes she suffered at their hands.

Finally, if she will take one small bit of advice from a long-time academic without thinking me a fuddydud or bullykid, let me just add this: it is almost always considered unprofessional to share your department’s dirty laundry with your students, regardless of whether or not they have reached majority. One way to further ensure her success at her new university would be to halt this practice at once.

And with that, I wish Professor Wunderland a happy and productive career.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 2:02 pm EDT on October 29, 2007

MIRRORS

I have also seen shallow and arrogant faculty like Prof. Wunderland. And they always wunder why nobody likes them.

Just out of curiosity, just what is it you intend to display to the world in your commentary and on your blog?

Art Deco, Garden Gnome at Whatsamatta U, at 7:00 pm EDT on October 29, 2007

Hmmm

I’m a little dubious about this article. I don’t want to dismiss it or the possibility that it is more or less accurate, because I do know people who have had similar experiences, particularly in small departments where a willingness to fit in with departmental culture (and most noxiously, retrograde, paternalist, and condescending attitudes towards female junior faculty) is a major consideration for tenure.

But the thing that sets off warning bells in my mind is near the beginning — the author states she worked 70-80 hours a week on her teaching. I’m sorry, but that’s just too much. Not that I don’t believe that someone could or did work that much on their teaching, particularly in a 4-4 institution, but that working that much on it is unlikely to help, and could suggest precisely what her colleagues warned her about: the dangers of being unable to set priorities and perfectionism, which is a more charitable and reasonable way of reading the 2nd year review criticisms that are described. And as a previous commenter noted, the unwillingness to listen to attempted constructive criticism suggests that there’s probably another side to the story.

Robert Boice, in Advice for Faculty Members in New Jobs highlights the ways in which overpreparation and overstuffing lectures with content can be deeply counterproductive. The people who put in excessive hours on teaching are often those who are least happy, least effective, and least likely to have long-term success. In contrast, his studies suggest that the most effective and most successful teacher/scholars are those who do not overprepare and take a more moderate and balanced approach to teaching. I’m not saying this work is the be-all and end-all, but the early descriptions AW gave of her preparation did not sound admirable or exemplary to me ... they sounded extreme and inefficient.

I’ll remain agnostic on this particular situation — as I said, I know that stuff like this actually does happen — but I wanted to add this to the mix. If you’re working 70-80 hours a week on teaching preparation, you’re probably not doing it right.

Historian, Asst Prof at Second Tier State, at 5:50 am EDT on October 30, 2007

From the Author

To Historian: Yours is one of the more thoughtful criticisms offered so far, although it too builds on unfounded assumptions of previous postings. But if you’ll notice, the 70-80 hrs/week included professional activities as well as teaching. It would have been impossible to have worked less and still performed the excessive job requirements well. And to those who have assumed my relationships with students or my teaching ability must be at fault, students of all abilities who are unafraid of hard work seek out my classes, they report on the evaluations that they learned a lot (and that I am “nice” – they are confused that a young woman can be both nice and tough), and my scores, for what they are worth, are high.

In general: What my critics want from me is some admission that I am not perfect and that my colleagues were not evil. I addressed the former in my last post—I assumed my deficiencies, perhaps even exaggerated them, and all my efforts went to remedy them. As for the latter issue, I think my colleagues initially had my best interest at heart. One of the main problems, I believe, was a chair with very poor managerial and communication skills. I recognized early on that although her oral reviews of me were confusing, contradictory, and with vaguely threatening undertones (the reviews in writing were glowingly positive, adding to the confusion), she believed that she was mentoring me; and although her style was problematic, I tried to take her comments in the spirit I assumed she meant them and worked to fix the unspecified problems with my performance (criticism is not “constructive” when it does not specify the problems or how to solve them). But after years of such conversations with more explicit threats and clear double standards for achievement within the department (twice the publication requirements for me compared to others), it became hard to distinguish incompetence from malice. It is a telling sign that only once in the several years I was there did any member of the department (Prof. Slackjob) approach me to ask how I was doing and if I was getting what I needed from the department by way of mentoring. He reassured me that there was nothing wrong with my performance and that I just needed to “schmooze” my colleagues. But although some insist that “playing politics” – deceiving and manipulating colleagues and students for personal or partisan ends – is necessary, I reject that. For students, the educational process should not be like the proceedings of some secret society in which they are merely the passive receptors of our fancied infallible wisdom. For junior faculty, the tenure process should likewise be uniform and transparent. In both cases, honesty, not Machiavellianism, should be the order of the day. (“Wake up Alison!”)

A.W., at 1:20 pm EDT on October 30, 2007

To Ms. DeNimm

Ms. DeNimm:

First, unless I’m mistaken, Professor Duemer is not commenting pseudonymously. Not only is that his real name, but he also includes his academic affiliation at the end of every post.

As for me, I didn’t consider my comments particularly vitriolic, much less an “assault” on anyone. I suppose “Assistant Professor from Hell” may have been a bit ungenerous, but certainly no more so than Fuddydud or Queenbee, and certainly less than Bullykid or Slackjob. But I suppose there’s dishing it out, and then there’s taking it.

As to what I might say to such an assistant professor in real life, that would, of course, depend on just how disagreeably he or she actually behaved. If your point is simply to suggest that I’m a coward, consider me unwounded. Rememeber that Professor Wunderland’s ability to lay down the smack (forgive me: I don’t keep current) is facilitated by her own pseudonymity. I doubt, for example, that she has ever called anyone Slackjob to his face.

So there you go. Someone takes on an assumed identity, trashes a former employer, demeans ex-colleagues with nasty nicknames, and then cries foul when some readers react badly to the whole thing. Still, she definitely got it over on her former colleagues, and that was, I assume, the whole point. Victory, therefore, is hers.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 9:35 pm EDT on October 30, 2007

Too True

UNFAIR TENURE AND OTHER DECISIONS IN ACADEMIA

I was disappointed that so many people put down Alison Wonderland for her comments in “‘Too Good’ for Tenure.” What she says is all too true. I have observed it often in my over 40 years in academia. Some commenters did not believe such awful things would occur in academia. They do.

Some thought there must be something wrong with her, which may or may not be true (probably not true, in my guesstimatation), but it misses the point of her whistleblowing. Of course any narrative reflects the views of the person telling the story. But, for many examples supporting the kinds of things she is discussing, read WORKPLACE MOBBING IN ACADEME: REPORTS FROM TWENTY UNIVERSITIES, edited by Kenneth Westhues (2004) Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. Horrible things can occur in academia, just like in any organization.

SOME EXAMPLES

Here are some examples of the kind of things Dr. Wonderland is mentioning. I have observed on several occasions that people who give many bad grades to students get bad evaluations, and then may be fired, not rehired, not tenured, etc. based on the bad evaluations and/or negative student comments.

Some studies have shown a correlation between the grade given and the student evaluation. Sorry, but I do not have the citations. While not all studies find this, the ones that do show that if you give good grades you tend to get good student evaluations, and vice versa.

I know of another case where a well-published scholar was told, when he took a job at a liberal arts college “You have done enough publications to last a lifetime. From now on, don’t publish. Focus on teaching.” Later, the administrator showed that he meant what he said. The professor heard this demand before classes started, just after he had purchased a house in the new location and sold his previous home in another state.

Even if you intend to give good grades, you might find that your students earn bad grades. If you give multiple choice tests there is nothing you can do, if you honestly report the grades. If you give essay tests you can grade very liberally, give almost all students A’s or B’s, and you will be well liked. If you give essay tests and grade honestly you might not be well liked. It may possibly kill your chances to get tenure.

The realities pointed out by Alison Wonderland are things to be taken seriously. It makes no sense to deny them or to kill the messenger who brings the bad news.

Russell Eisenman, Ph.D. Department of Psychology University of Texas-Pan AmericanEdinburg, TX 78539-2999

E-mail: eisenman@utpa.edu

Russell Eisenman, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychology at University of Texas-Pan American, at 3:30 pm EDT on November 1, 2007

The last two writers gave good points. It is likely that academic standards will continue to decrease. Professors who believe in tough love and high standards will find it very difficult to teach, and that will also make other work (like research and publishing) difficult.

As I wrote several times in other comment threads, the only solution is to separate university from vocational training. It is possible that most students do not need to go to college or even university but require only vocational or technical education. This can be taught without the need for PhDs, universities, and research facilities.

Universities are supposed to be research centers, which means their teaching faculties should be dedicated to teaching students who want to do research and are prepared to do so. They shouldn’t be teaching general education or remediation and should not rely on tuition revenues, sports programs, or even donations for funding; instead, society itself should be funding them through tax revenues in the same way that sales support R&D in companies. And if socities do not see universities or research as important, then the latter will have to decrease in number.

Ralfy, at 5:45 am EST on November 7, 2007