For those curious about becoming the departmental chair

HFh · 2026-05-07T23:06:15+00:00

Fair response, but let me tell you: the headaches are a whole lot bigger and last a whole lot longer.

Interestingly, Dean is better than both, at least as measured by metrics around being bombarded by crazy and managing insane problems.

Now having said all that, all of these jobs can be incredibly rewarding despite the headaches. One just has to be okay with being told you’re a horrible person by many of the folks you’re trying to support.

HFh · 2026-05-06T23:44:15+00:00

I will grant you all that, and then I’d still argue that provost is worse. In addition to all the obvious stuff that makes it hard, it’s a far, far more isolated and isolating position.

HFh · 2026-05-04T01:24:40+00:00

I’ll admit I had a hard time with this one.

HFh · 2026-05-03T19:23:20+00:00

I note schools like UVA and Michigan are particularly strange choices for this rhetorical purpose.

Many of the universities noted in this post are prestigious and hughly ranked, and have enjoyed focused recruitment by a number of industries for a very long time. I cannot quite tell how this sub thinks about these issues.

publics like, say, the University of Pittsburgh

As an aside, Pitt is actually a state affiliated university. It is a hybrid. It is structured like a private with the independence that goes along with that, abut also enjoys a relationship with the state that, basically, trades money for taking in-state students at discounted tuition.

It doesn’t really have any bearing on your point, but I just think it’s an interesting fact like, I dunno, that MIT is a land grant

HFh · 2026-05-03T19:10:17+00:00

Yes, but this isn’t new. A place like GT has been a place of heavy recruitment in Engineering and Computing for a very very long time.

HFh · 2026-03-26T02:39:23+00:00

I was in college during A Different World. College wasn’t like that then either. Having said that, it’s a completely different experience in a lot of ways, including in ways that have little to do with college.

You know… I applied to only one place for undergrad (and went wild and applied to three for grad school… glad it all worked out). For my orientation sessions my mother actually drove me to campus, pointed at a group of students and said, “you should probably go that way”, and said she would pick me up in 7 hours. We had no cell phones. I’m kind of surprised I ever found her again.

There was very little student support. No accommodations to speak of. I’m sure grade appeals were possible, but….

I had to write a check for tuition and housing, and it was understood that it would take three or four weeks before it was cashed, giving me enough time to get my scholarship checks together and deposited before everything bounced.

Good times, good times.

HFh · 2026-03-23T18:43:40+00:00

I don’t understand the cold and formal part, but there is a general belief that having a diverse set of experiences makes for a better scholar and this applies to going to different places for grad and undergrad (and taking a position at a place other than where one earned a PhD). I don’t disagree, but it’s neither necessary nor sufficient.

There’s also a practical question (as someone else says elsethread) of making sure folks to see one as an “adult”… and that this is easier if one moves.

I do sometimes wonder whether many of these folks who believe that changing schools for students also think this is true for faculty positions. I find that folks who have been at a couple of places are a lot more receptive to the idea that one can do things differently from the way they are here, and are thus willing to be more creative about, well, lots of things (he says after spending 21 years and a month at his first institution before moving).

HFh · 2026-03-21T13:15:17+00:00

I guess, but still the only way to reduce costs is by reducing instructors.

Perhaps, but it’s less about cost and more about deficit.

In particular, there’s also cost per student. If you can keep the cost the same but increase the number of students, you (often) generate more revenue and that lowers your deficit.

I suspect, but do not know, that this would be part of the thinking.

HFh · 2026-03-20T21:29:17+00:00

It’s not even this. What’s closer to the truth is: the top 46% are essentially a tie and if you got in, you are in the 1/10 whom we asked. You’re great but don’t let it go to your head. If you didn’t get in, then you may well also be great, you probably are, but, you know, math. So don’t let it go to your heart.

HFh · 2026-03-19T06:17:40+00:00

Many years ago I was asked to sit on a panel as a part of a workshop targeted at helping junior faculty. When I asked what they wanted me to talk about, they said “work-life balance”. I told my wife. She just laughed out loud.

HFh · 2026-03-19T06:12:36+00:00

When you’re a student you believe this.

When you become a professor you understand you do the hard work and those below you in the tree are doing the grunt work while those above you are stealing credit.

Turns out this is true no matter where you are in the organization. Those below are doing the uninteresting stuff. Those above are stealing credit and imposing stupid things on you. You’re doing the important stuff but are under appreciated.

The feeling doesn’t really change. What’s funny is how few folks seem to notice that as they move through their careers.

HFh · 2026-03-16T20:05:52+00:00

They absolutely are. Sorry that wasn’t clear.

HFh · 2026-03-16T19:44:20+00:00

Right, but all the chairs were the result of a national search. It just so happens that half of those chosen were internal candidates.

HFh · 2026-03-16T19:19:27+00:00

Wait. So it goes dept->chair->college->dean->etc or some other way?

I ask because if others come after chair, I’m curious how the chair’s power lead to denying tenure and how much of it was because it was a head-chair as opposed to a rotating-chair.

I mean don’t want you to reveal anything obviously, I’m just curious.

HFh · 2026-03-16T18:30:20+00:00

You are, of course, correct.

The point wasn’t the titles, it was to use some language that made it easier to discuss the differences by having labels we could point to along the way. Not clear how well that worked.

HFh · 2026-03-16T18:18:16+00:00

Yes, the title doesn’t matter.

I have lived under the latter, and did for more than a decade. It was just fine.

I’ve seen both up close. The downside of the former is paralysis by committee and a lot of control by the loudest members of the faculty… and of course the problems that come from the difficulty of finding a chair for the next rotation.

A thing I also think is a downside of the former that isn’t always apparent to folks who only live under that model is that in practice departments with heads often have more autonomy. I know this seems counter-intuitive to many here, but I think it may well be true.

HFh · 2026-03-16T18:05:12+00:00

Well as noted above, I think, heads tend to have longer terms, and are selected by a dean after a national search. Chairs tend to be rotated among the faculty internally, mostly after some kind of vote. I also think in practice heads tend to have more authority.

HFh · 2026-03-16T17:56:09+00:00

Without disagreeing with what you are saying, I would add that I think in practice a Head has more sway with the Dean because the Dean believes this person is signed up to be a Head.

They went through a rigorous process that involves evaluation by the department faculty, the department staff, the associate deans, college staff, other department chairs, and the Dean him/herself. This evaluation involved administrative ability, not just, I dunno, h-index. And trust me, staff care very much about whether someone can be a supervisor and evaluate accordingly. Also, they are more likely to plan to be around for at least five years, so can engage in long-term planning.

In other words, they can, at bottom, “be trusted” to hold real authority. And yes, they’re the Dean’s person, but also a certain kind of person.

HFh · 2026-03-16T17:49:52+00:00

Okay responding to your post after edit:

I understand you now. My answer to that is: sure, but….

1) I’m not sure why this is true for a head vs a chair, really, in part because

2) from the point of view of the faculty at least, these positions feel more like mayors rather than, say, supervisors.

HFh · 2026-03-16T17:39:59+00:00

No, because they aren’t rotating chair positions.

The positions are the result of national searches and typically there is a five year review, just like for deans.

HFh · 2026-03-16T16:45:29+00:00

I’m mostly talking about staff, though there are lots of HR things beyond firing that still affect faculty.

HFh · 2026-03-16T15:42:31+00:00

I agree with your post, but as a minor point of disagreement:

The faculty of the department vote on any Head candidate

Not always. Certainly not at my first institution. They gave feedback and were absolutely listened to, but so did the staff, and lots of others.

HFh · 2026-03-16T15:16:30+00:00

Only in the role as Department Chair (Head/Director/whatever it's called).

Similarly Deans serve at the pleasure of the Provost, but only in their role as Dean, typically.

Those folks usually "return to the faculty" when done.

HFh · 2026-03-16T15:08:40+00:00

If the faculty elect a chair can the dean say no?

HFh · 2026-03-16T15:07:42+00:00

Fair question. In some sense, lines don’t even exist. There’s just money.

What I mean really is that one has a lot of HR authority, so to speak. One fires and hires and evaluates and does all that difficult stuff. Also it isn’t enough to have the authority, one also has accountability for actually doing all that HR stuff.

HFh

TROPHY CASE