Perez Case
[Issues: evaluation of collaborative research, constraints regarding
courses/lab equipment, graduate students—to precede the scenario of the
meeting game]
Jamie Perez, Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from MIT, joins
a prestigious research university as a tenure-track assistant professor
after completing a post-doc. 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 he is not
immediately assigned lab space. The chair suggests 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
constraining, this arrangement encouraged the two 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 reasonable record of publication in top quality journals.
During the 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 in an area more closely related” to
the unit’s interests and strategic plans. 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, Perez was known as a popular teacher,
according to evaluations of MSE majors, and a valued advisor as
attested by some graduate students. He was 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.
Link to this Page
Project Organization
ADEPT Goals
ADEPT Tool Design
ADEPT Tool Development
ADEPT Project Schedule
ADEPT Minutes
ADEPT Prototypes
Related Links
Georgia Tech Resources
Outside Resources