I am writing to seek your evaluation of my record. I have one NSF as sole-PI (~$350K) and another as the only co-PI (~$300K). I am also a co-PI on an earmark from another agency (~$600K), and a few other small grants ($25k total):I was wondering if I could seek your input on my track record. I have a few questions to ask. Please feel free to share this on your blog (if you feel ok about it), but please remove my name. I have the following questions, and I would appreciate your input (I know some answers are institution-dependent, but your input is fully appreciated):
1- What are my chances for tenure?
2- Which one would people value more? Grant versus publications?
3- Do they just count papers. i.e., should I maximize paper output, should I focus on Reputable Society Journal or go after 2nd tier journals too? Papers with students? Papers with colleagues, etc?
4- How important is teaching versus high-impact service (editorial board memberships, technical program committees (TPC) of conference, etc).
One thing that worries me is the significant emphasis on grants/money, and I don't see anyone caring much for the "quality" of publications (type of journals, authorship orders, etc). It seems like money can make or break a case, and everything else (including journal papers) is secondary. Of course, these are word of mouth… on paper, I have to excel in everything, quality is important, blah blah blah :)
By the way, my department chair and associate chair have been very, very nice and super supportive so far; I could not ask for more.
I have had a chance to look at Avid's CV and we exchanged a couple of emails, so he's received my detailed opinion, but I don't want to list what I wrote here so as not to prejudice the comments or reveal too much about who Avid is. I will share that Avid is in a physical science/engineering STEM field and IMHO has published well.
Please tell Avid what you think will be important when tenure time comes, and don't forget to say what your discipline is. Thanks!