PMYR is a periodic multi-year review of faculty activity. Post-tenure review (PTR) emphasizes the application of PMYR to tenured faculty members. However, PMYR and PTR are synonymous for the purposes of our discussion.
Faculty are discussing PMYR because of agreements made in the new three-year faculty union contract reached in July, 1998.University administration wanted a post-tenure review policy in the contract and said they would not settle or give pay raises unless a policy was agreed on. Faculty union negotiators countered that this issue needed careful study and discussion among the faculty as a whole before a position on post-tenure review could even be formulated.
THE CONTRACT COMPROMISE: A new contract with 15% raises was finalized,
BUT about half the raises depend on negotiating some kind of post-tenure
review policy, and negotiations on PMYR were delayed until February 1,
1999, giving Fall semester for all faculty to discuss PMYR and work to
design a policy proposal that the Union will take to the negotiating table.
Back to the PMYR Resource Page.
Our preliminary research has shown that PMYR usually adheres to the following principles:
Back to the PMYR Resource Page.
Our committee has also begun discussing potential opportunities and concerns associated with systems of post-tenure review. The following table has been adapted from a hand out by Christine Licata, Senior Associate of AAHE's New Pathways Project, who spoke at an MTA con ference this summer. Though not exhaustive, this list helps initiate our discussions.
| Opportunities | Concerns |
| 1. Longer term view of individual performance that possible through annual reports. | 1. Can be time and labor intensive, and lead to over-administration. |
| 2. Forces conversation about performance and individual career goals. | 2. Provides no guarantee that the process will positively affect all faculty. |
| 3. Can respond to accountability demands and mollify external critics. | 3. Viewed as an assault on tenure, replaces academic culture with corporate culture. |
| 4. Can help return underperforming faculty to full productivity. | 4. May undermine collegiality. |
| 5. May forestall further external interference and keep tenure system viable. | 5. Requires additional resources for faculty growth and development. |
| 6. Can provide closer alignment between individual discipline interest and departmental priorities and goals. | 6. May diminish pursuit of controversial, unpopular, or unusual areas of inquiry. |
| 7. Can accommodate and promote differentiated opportunity to adjust mix and balance of faculty activities to better match career goals. | 7. Can create two-tier faculty and workload; may foster perception of lower standards for some individuals. |
Back to the PMYR Resource Page.
American Association of University Professors (AAUP) released a position paper on post-tenure review in1998. In their view, post-tenure review must:
Back to the PMYR Resource Page.
Existing models of PMYR have several features in common, including a stated period of review; evaluation based on the faculty member's own input on teaching, research, service as well as future goals and research plans; and a process that identifies possible outcomes and the principal administrators involved. One distinguishing feature involves the scope of the review. Models in practice fall into two basic categories:
More information on existing models in practice is available from:
In addition, a 20 page summary of existing models has also been distributed to department representatives.
Back to the PMYR Resource Page.
Licata and Morreale on Post Tenure Review: Policies, Practices, Precautions
(September 1997)This summary was prepared by Michigan State University and it covers all the points made by Christine Licata when she spoke at UMass-Amherst on September 28, 1998.
The original paper by Licata and Morreale is a 75-page American Association of Higher Education white paper describing how post-tenure review is implemented in colleges and universities in the US, how it is linked to other evaluations of faculty performance, and the reasons why it has become an issue faculty have to deal with. The authors argue that there are real benefits in post-tenure review, beside the dangers. [Note: this is a pdf file which must be viewed with the Adobe Acrobat Reader. You can download Adobe Acrobat here (it's free).Wendy Roworth at UMass-Amherst (November 1998)
On November 9, 1998, Wendy Roworth, Professor of Art History and Women's Studies at the University of Rhode Island, visited UMass-Amherst to discuss her views on PMYR. Professor Roworth is one of the authors of the recent AAUP report on post-tenure review, and her observations provided a counterpoint to the views expressed by Christine Licata when she spoke at UMass-Amherst on September 28, 1998.
This document contains extensive notes written by John Kingston during two discussions with Professor Roworth on November 9.
Post-Tenure Review: An AAUP Response (June 1998)
A position paper by the American Association of University Professors.
A Summary of PTR Policies at 17 Universities (September 1997)
The policies of 17 public, large enrollment, graduate/professional universities have been analyzed and summarized by Michigan State University. Four are predominantly formative, three are predominantly summative, and the remaining ten are a mixture of formative and summative. 10 of these 17 campuses adopted their PTR policies in 1996 or 1997.
Report on the University of Illinois Seminar on Tenure (December 1996)
If you only have time to read one document, this would be a good choice. It outlines a comprehensive picture of tenure, its associated issues, and culminates with recommendations on PTR at Urbana-Champaign.
Public Higher Ed: Battleground in the Tenure Wars by William E. Scheuerman in Thought & Action (Fall 1997)
Arguments in support of tenure and its role in protecting public higher education from political forces outside the academic community. (11 pages). [Note: this is a pdf file which must be viewed with the Adobe Acrobat Reader. You can download Adobe Acrobat here (it's free).
The Truth about Tenure in Higher Education (1998 ?)
Published by the Higher Education Departments of the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. This is an on-line brochure outlining some facts and myths about tenure in the United States. It's short, easy to read, and contains some useful facts.
Critics of College Teaching by Walter P. Metzger in the NEA Almanac of Higher Education (1996)
The author describes various attacks on higher education over the last 40 years. This is a good place to acquire some historical perspective (15 pages). [Note: this is a pdf file which must be viewed with the Adobe Acrobat Reader. You can download Adobe Acrobat here (it's free).
Rethinking Tenure: Toward new templates for academic employment by Richard P. Chait in Harvard Magazine (July-August, 1997)
Richard P. Chait, professor of higher education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, is coauthor of Beyond Traditional Tenure: A Guide to Sound Policies and Practices and one of two leaders of the "New Pathways" project, sponsored by the American Association for Higher Education to reexamine tenure and the faculty career.
More Faculty Members Question the Value of Tenure by Courtney Leatherman in The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 25, 1996)
The push toward tenure reform is not just coming from without - this article argues that faculty can be just as critical of the tenure system as trustees and legislators.
More Colleges Conduct Post-Tenure Reviews by Denise Magner in The Chronicle of Higher Education (July 21, 1995)
An even-handed summary of current trends, arguments in both directions, and some quotable quotes.
Post-Tenure Faculty Evaluation by Christine M. Licata in ERIC Digests (1987)
This digest is a summary of "Post-Tenure Faculty Evalutaion: Threat or Opportunity?" by Christine M. Licata. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1.Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education. ED 270 009.
Back to the PMYR Resource Page.
Back to the PMYR Resource Page.
The faculty committee on Periodic Multi-Year Review (PMYR) has convened
and begun to study the issue of post-tenure. The committee wishes to facilitate
the widest possible discussion of PMYR on this campus. We will be contacting
faculty for input on this important issue as well as communicating with
the administration throughout our deliberations. The PMYR Committee is
comprised of the following faculty members. Please feel free to contact
any member directly with your questions or concerns.
John Kingston (Chair) - Linguistics (jkingston@lingu ist.umass.edu)
Nancy Folbre - Economics (folbre@econs.umass.edu)
Arturo Escobar - Anthropology (aescobar@anthro.umass.e du)
Richard Giglio - Mechanical Engineering (giglio@ecs.umass.edu)
Robert Hallock - Physics and Astronomy (hallock@phast.umass.edu)
Anne Herrington - English (anneh@english.umass.edu)
Susan Jahoda - Art (sej@art.umass.edu)
Bruce Laurie - History (laurie@history.umass.edu)
Wendy Lehnert - Computer Science (lehnert@cs.umass.edu)
Ellen Pader - LARP (pader@larp.umass.edu)
Stephen Malkin - Mechanical Engineering (malkin@ecs.umass.edu)
Ernest Washington - TECS (ewashington@educ.umass. edu)
Ex Officio:
Beth Boyer - MTA Consultant (eboyer@massteacher.org )
Mary Fletcher - MSP Executive Director (msp@external.umass.edu)
Jenny Spencer - MSP President (jspencer@english.umass. edu)
Back to the PMYR Resource Page.