I was at a general meeting today (ie not law school specific) about approaches to effective mentoring for tenure track faculty. In particular, we were asked about what advice we would give junior faculty members about ensuring satisfactory mentoring experiences eg what we wish we had thought to ask when we were on the tenure track.
The variety of responses was interesting. Some people spoke about transparency in promotion processes, salary information etc. The real issue here was how do you know what you don't know that you actually do need to know on the tenure track. That's a tough one and I'd be interested in people's thoughts. For example, how do you know if you are obtaining fair compensation at a private school, sufficient research support etc.
We also talked a little about gendered differences in giving and receiving criticism and how to shape mentoring programs to ensure that mentees and mentors are aware of those differences to the extent they exist and impact a person's career planning.
One issue that came up that was particularly interesting was how to make the most of unconstructive criticism. What can you learn from unhelpful comments about your work in terms of learning something from the comments themselves and/or whether the mentee has any responsibility or opportunity to educate the mentor about giving more constructive/useful feedback.
In this context, some really great examples of fairly ineffective criticism were discussed. A couple of my personal faves are:
1/ You need to show us what you bring to the table.
2/ You have a great voice, but you don't have anything to say.
I'd be interested in people's thoughts about their experiences on the tenure track, what they know now that they wish they'd known then, how open they felt about questioning their mentors, and what to do if a mentoring relationship just isn't working out. And of course if you have any great zingers people have given you about your work in the past, feel free to share them too.
More unconstructive comments:
"You need to situate your work more clearly."
"Your work is interesting but thin."
"Could you drill deeper?"
Mentors need to be specific in their comments on scholarship, and be honest about the whole tenure process.
Posted by: Calvin Massey | January 11, 2012 at 05:30 PM
"You have a great voice, but you don't have anything to say." Love it! It made my day! -Sarah-
Posted by: Cheap Calendar Printing | January 11, 2012 at 08:32 PM
When I go to academic conferences, I always bring a decaying severed head with me, so that when I'm told that I have to show them what I bring to the table, I have something handy.
Posted by: Eric Muller | January 11, 2012 at 09:22 PM
These two comments stick out in my mind as especially amusing and mystifying: "You've got the steak but not the sizzle," and "He's all hat, no cattle." Is it a meat thing that I just wouldn't understand?
Posted by: Bridget Crawford | January 12, 2012 at 08:04 AM
Eric: Is it the decaying severed head of the last person who asked you what you bring to the table?
Posted by: Jacqui Lipton | January 12, 2012 at 09:20 AM
Calvin,
I'm not sure why "you need to situate your work more clearly" is unconstructive. Many (aspiring) legal academics write pieces that respond to legal developments without doing the work of determining whether their piece actually moves the conversation forward. Are there academics who have already written on this topic? If so, what have they said and why is your piece an improvement on the literature? Who will be chastened by having read your piece because they now will think: hmm, I should have thought of that.
That's what it means to situate a piece, so the intervention of the new piece is clear. Articles or books that fail to do that are usually wasting their readers' time. And authors who don't understand why that advice is constructive are probably aiming to pick only fruit that is low-hanging.
Posted by: Dan Markel | January 12, 2012 at 09:42 AM
Dan: I think your description of what that comment means is actually much more helpful than the comment itself. I suppose one of my pet peeves is academics speaking in shorthand and assuming all the newbies actually know what they are talking about. "Situate your work" how? "Drill deeper" in what sense? With respect to what aspect of the work?
I think some senior folks would do well to remember that junior folks don't automatically know what these phrases mean and could think to explain them more clearly, like you did in your post.
(Oh, and Bridget, it might be fun to get the meat metaphors together with Eric's severed head and see what happens!)
Posted by: Jacqui Lipton | January 12, 2012 at 09:52 AM