“The president of MIT told me that tenure was not about research or merit.”
&gt; <i>“Look Cesar, the truth is that, if you are a mediocre researcher, but your department wants to keep you, they’ll find a way to keep you. And if you are a strong researcher, and your department wants to get rid of you, they’ll find a way to get rid of you.”</i><p>Having seen people go through the tenure process at peer institution, this sounds right. Your department writes up an internal assessment of you and solicits letters from faculty at other institutions. They can stack the deck in your favor, and to some extent against you, by choosing favorable or unfavorable letter-writers. The people who review a tenure file that the department writes up can push back or ask questions, but it would be difficult for them to undo the effect of a department&#x27;s framing — if the department worked hard to shade it one way or the other.<p>&gt; <i>I finally got “an answer.” The president of MIT told me that tenure was not about research, productivity, or merit. It was about office politics &amp; being liked by your department.</i><p>I don&#x27;t think conclusion is warranted. Even if the people in a department don&#x27;t want you around, if you have outside interest they would look like fools to have not tenured you. If you are sufficiently excellent to get outside interest from peer institutions, your home institution will be pressured to grant you tenure as well. They might not make you the most compelling offer to stay, but you will get tenure.