I would argue about part of this. Usually...a new guy is brought in, and there is a review process by a board with the university...usually three to four years later....to state if the guy gets tenure. If they think he’s done a good bit of work....published some reviews and papers...and gotten positive comments by the senior professors...then it’s an automatic “yes”.
Some of you may remember the gal down in Huntsville, who got riled up and upset when tenure wasn’t going to be offered to her, and she shot the board members.
In this case, I seriously doubt that he ever got the tenure offer. Note, you’d have to publish some reviews and documents....which we know that he’s virtually incapable of writing anything (you don’t notice such reviews out there...do you?).
So he could continue on as a regular professor....but never have tenure, thus missing retirement with the big bucks. My guess was that this was a stopping station...to fill a square to claim he was a “professor”, and no more. Everyone was doing their piece to get him to the next level (even the Nobel Peace Prize committee).
Only Assistant Professors on tenure-track are eligible to get tenure, which is awarded along with a promotion to Associate Professor. The promotion, if it occurs, takes place in their 7th year, after year-long review and a positive recommendation from the committee on tenure. If they are not awarded tenure, their initial 5-year contract automatically runs out and they must move on to another job.
One non-tenure category is Adjunct Professor. They are not paid at all unless they actually teach a course, which is fairly rare. They have a successful outside profession want to enhance their resume by association with the university.
Obama’s position was in a third category. Instructors and lecturers are not on a tenure-track. For them there is never a tenure review. They are on year-to-year contracts and must be rehired starting from zero every year. They are paid not much more than graduate student teaching assistants. Instructors and lecturers generally have a professional level degree, but few or no publications. They get paid by the course. There are lots of reasons for people to take such an iffy position. One is that they have a profession outside the university from which they are not quite making a living. Another is they want to enhance their resume for some future position outside the university.
You are partially correct...
However, many colleges and universities will hand out tenure and special honors to anyone they want.....even bypassing boards and accreditation committies......this is how a lot of politicians, without the required education....end up with cushy professorships after they leave office
Obama is perfectly capable of writing.
He can write whatever the teleprompter tells him.
Excellent speculation, but the American people so much want you to be wrong!
I’d have to take issue with your description of the hiring and tenure process at universities. Your description may be accurate for some small, local college but is not at all accurate for most. Usually it is up or out for tenure track professors. They don’t just continue without being granted tenure. The adjuncts are a different story. They have no power, no vote, no benefits, and tenure is not a consideration. The tenured and the adjuncts live in two different worlds.
Some of you may remember the gal down in Huntsville, who got riled up and upset when tenure wasn’t going to be offered to her, and she shot the board members.
In this case, I seriously doubt that he ever got the tenure offer. Note, you’d have to publish some reviews and documents....which we know that he’s virtually incapable of writing anything (you don’t notice such reviews out there...do you?).
So he could continue on as a regular professor....but never have tenure, thus missing retirement with the big bucks. My guess was that this was a stopping station...to fill a square to claim he was a “professor”, and no more. Everyone was doing their piece to get him to the next level (even the Nobel Peace Prize committee).
At an accredited law school, I would think it would be a five-year review period for tenure (and a mid-career review at two years), then tenure granted if the (academic) tenure review board approves of the candidate.
The tenure approval would be based on a record of favorable teaching evaluations, papers written and published, public service, and general contribution to legal scholarship.
I'm sure the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) could offer more information on this individual.