So, I finally buckled down and wrote my research description and assembled my tenure dossier. I sent the 166 page document to my tenure committee (three of my senior colleagues) and expected to get back an enormous number of suggestions… overall, they were pleased, and it only took me about half a day to get the document into final form. Now it’s out of my hands. My committee and department chair have chosen the 10-12 people who will be asked for “outside” evaluations, and they will have until early October to read the package and write a letter that gives their recommendation about whether or not I should be tenured. They will certainly point out the weak points in my package as well. This is the part of the process that has the most “wild card” character. I don’t know who’s going to be asked (though it will surely be a bunch of “famous” chemists within some intellectual proximity to my work) or if they like me/my work. These letters will influence all of the votes that happen over the next year on my tenure case. University of Minnesota has an unusual policy that the letters are available to me to read. For this reason, some people refuse to write letters for the University of Minnesota. I’m not sure that I will read the letters … if my department vote goes badly, I suppose I’ll have to look at them to make sure that the letters are accurate. Either way, the next big hurdle in this process is preparing for my tenure talk. On September 29th, I’ll give departmental seminar, and this will be where most of my colleagues will hear what I’ve been working on. I’ve given a lot of talks, and it’s been a long time since I’ve been nervous… but I am for this. This talk will have a significant influence on whether or not I have the opportunity to keep my current job for the rest of my life. Right now I’m feeling too intimidated to even start working on the slides but I’ll have to get over that sometime soon.