ADEPT Development
Content: Career Accounts (used for web, AV, C&Q, NYC and SM components)
This is a case summary, or unofficial account, of candidate's career. This account is non-coded; annotated, or color-coded versions, are written with biases and procedural issues highlighted, and are used only in the "Cases & Questions" activity.
--------------------------------
Jamie Perez
Materials Science and Engineering: collaborative research, constraints regarding courses/lab equipment, graduate students
ISSUES: evaluation of collaborative research, constraints regarding courses/lab equipment, graduate students
Jamie Perez, Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from MIT, joins
a prestigious research university as a tenure-track assistant professor
after completing post-docs at Berkeley and Northwestern. At the time of
hiring, the search committee notes a one-year gap between post-docs, a
time when Perez studied as a Fulbright Scholar at a European
university. Support for his faculty slot is earmarked from the Dean’s
office for the first two years of the appointment by virtue of an
underrepresented faculty hiring initiative.
Perez’s start-up package was average for faculty in that unit, but
there are some glitches in finding adequate lab space and equipment.
While he had been verbally assured during his negotiations that he
could share the lab of a senior professor, Perez is told upon arrival
by the senior faculty member in his interest group that the senior
faculty member’s group has priority, and he has limited Perez and his
students to two hours per week in that lab. The chair then sent an
e-mail to Perez about a change of plans, suggesting that he share a lab
with another entering assistant professor until the following year,
when the senior colleague moved to a new building on campus. Although
somewhat constraining to the research programs of both individuals,
this logistical arrangement encouraged the two new colleagues to
collaborate on a small research project with some industry funding
while also continuing their individual research agendas. The chair
recommended at the first annual review that Perez “pay greater
attention to research funding in areas more closely linked to the
unit’s focus” and “try harder” to attract graduate students.
In year 2 Perez established a functioning independent lab, attracting a
small number of graduate students, and published a paper in a journal
about teaching undergraduates and one (with two collaborators) in a
significant journal. The small amount of industry funding for
collaborative research continued, and Perez was again counseled by his
chair during the annual review to pursue more funding. In year 3 Perez
coauthored papers in two important journals and worked as the sole
materials science and engineering faculty member on a multidisciplinary
project with four other faculty members from different engineering and
science units. The collaborative, five-year project attracted $5
million funding from the National Science Foundation and supported one
post doc and three graduate students in Perez’s lab. During this period
Perez taught only relatively large undergraduate service classes, as
senior professors in his interest group claimed the specialty and
advanced courses in his area.
The third-year review of Perez’s work resulted in a somewhat mixed
evaluation. The school chair counseled Perez to “keep up the good work
with teaching and service” but expressed his concern that Perez had not
been able to secure more than a minimum amount of individual funding
despite a very reasonable record of publication in top quality
journals. The chair was also concerned that Perez had trouble retaining
the more marginal graduate students assigned him (the more promising
students were assigned to the most senior faculty in the same interest
group). During his review meeting, Perez requested that his chair
exercise leadership over the interest group so that he can teach
graduate courses in his field and therefore attract more and better
graduate students. The chair suggested that perhaps Perez “instead
ought to consider devoting more time to individual research, especially
in an area more closely related” to the unit’s interests and strategic
plans to supplement his collaborative work. The chair also expressed
concern that Perez was not playing a leadership role in the interaction
with other departments on the large NSF grant.
By the time of tenure review, it is clear that Perez did not emphasize
pursuing any individual grant funding, as his chair suggested. Perez
remained a popular teacher, according to evaluations of MSE majors, and
a valued advisor as attested by some graduate students. He was somewhat
more inclined than other faculty members in the unit to take on certain
advising and other committee responsibilities. Although he attracted
little individual funding, Perez was able to keep up a moderately
active and fairly well funded research program in an area not well
developed in the unit because of the multi-disciplinary collaboration.
In the unit promotion and tenure committee, questions are raised
regarding Perez’s future funding potential as an individual researcher,
as a teacher of graduate students, and the value of his area of
research for the unit. As a member of the committee, how would you
respond to these concerns and ensure that Perez receive a fair hearing?
Links to this page
Project Organization
ADEPT Goals
ADEPT Tool Design
ADEPT Tool Development
ADEPT Project Schedule
ADEPT Minutes
ADEPT Prototypes
Related Links