...or any tenure threshold tied to NIH grant success, really.
I think I polled you all or at least asked about tenure standards evolving in response to the dismal NIH funding climate in a prior post. Well, the topic reared its ugly head again on the Twitts:
I had the "how to get tenure" and "this is what we expect in grants from you" talk. 2 RO1's per PI average is the goal
The only think I have that is new to contribute is related to this observation from Cackle of Rad:
I'm working the beat trying to get this in the collective conscious of peeps in the dept first
University level Promotions and Tenure (P&T) Committees deal with disparate expectations all the time. Humanities versus Science. Social Science versus Biomedical Science. School of Medicine "Biology" versus College of Arts and Science "Biology".
What they rely upon in changing times, so I was just hearing, is a strong and clear description from the Chair of the department in question. The Chair (or head of the Departmental Promotion Committee) must be able to communicate clearly in her recommendation-for-tenure letter that the current candidate has been performing admirably and that grant success today looks much different from grant success five or ten years ago.
It is clear to me, however, that bluehairs and even the merely salt-and-pepper bearded may not always recognize that things have changed. Or if they do understand this, they may think it is obvious to everyone.
This is where Cackle's comment comes in handy. It is the job of all young faculty, if they expect to hang together, to edumacate their elders. To discuss the latest grant funding news, rebut the self-involved ranting with the NIH numbers and just generally throw down on the topic of NIH grant-getting.
As non-whinily and non-self-servingly as you possibly can.