ความคิดเห็นที่ 28
First let me say, congratulations to Khun Krisda! This sounds like a very exciting opportunity and the fact that there is another Thai joining our US faculty force is just fantastic.
Second, I would like to add my two cents on the issues of tenure and non-tenure tracks. What Khun Krisda described about this topic is just only one aspect of it, which is true mostly in perhaps humanity and social sciences. In science, engineering, and medicine, the tenure/non-tenure track issue is in fact quite different and maybe a bit more complicated, especially in medicine.
In medical school, for example, there usually are three groups of faculty, namely tenure, research, and clinical tracks. By any means, these tracks do not imply non-permanent positions. Many research and clinical professors in fact stay and serve the school for as long as tenure-track/tenured professors, if not longer. The funny part about medical school is that at a certain point in time, you need to pay for part or all of your own salary regardless of the tracks. So unless you are a very prominent expert in your field as a tenured professor, it is not uncommon that clinical professors get a higher salary than tenure-track or tenured professors (who have to cover part or all of their salary from their grants).
All of these tracks can be permanent or non-permanent depending on the individual faculty member and his/her contract with the school. So what is the major difference? Perhaps, in my view, the major difference is the reponsibility, obligation, and how you are evaluated.
For a tenure track, like Khun Krisda explained, a faculty member is responsible for teaching, research, and service. For research and clinical tracks, like the names suggest, a faculty member is more responsible for research and clinical service, respectively, while it does not mean that he/she will not get to teach or perform other services--they do usually but in a less extent than their tenure-track colleagues.
In addition, at a premier research school, everyone is expected to do research. Although it might be fine with the university policy if a tenured faculty ceased all of his/her research activity because he/she was already tenured, in general this could be a professional suicide if especially the individual worked at a tier-one research university.
For instance, faculty members at a well-known school in the midwest, if I'm not mistaken, are evaluated for their teaching/research performance on a regular basis even if they are tenured. And if they do not perform satisfactorily, there can be some ramification.
So what is my point after all this? The answer is simple, I just want to widen the perspective on this issue and bring awareness to my fellow pantip(sters) that under certain circumstances, a tenure-track position does not mean better and vice versa.
Particularly to Khun Krisda: I'm glad to hear that you like Houston. It is one fine city. I have some good friends who live there and they love it. But no offense to any Houstonians, I would not go so far as to describe Houston with the word "แสงสี" since that word means much more to me than what I could personally find in Houston. But let me know, Khun Krisda, when you find a place like Pike Place Market or Queen Anne district, then I'd go visit. ;-) And remember, Houston is in the Republic of Texas.
จากคุณ :
CIT
- [
8 มี.ค. 50 02:36:06
A:128.125.45.188 X: TicketID:055063
]
|
|
|
