[MUSIC]

Andy (0:02):
Welcome to the HigherEdJobs Podcast, Ask the Expert Edition. I'm Andy Hibel, the Chief Operating Officer and one of the co-founders of HigherEdJobs.

Kelly (0:10):
And I'm Kelly Cherwin, the Director of Editorial Strategy. Today, we're joined by Dr. Emilio Ulloa, Associate Diversity Officer for MSI Affairs and Professor of Psychology at San Diego State University. We'll be discussing how early-career faculty can prepare for and navigate the tenure process. Dr. Ulloa is a senior higher education administrator, researcher, and consultant with extensive experience across student affairs, academic affairs, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. His work focuses on advancing student success, improving campus culture, and helping institutions use data to drive meaningful and lasting change. In addition to his administrative leadership, his research examines interpersonal relationships and the prevention of sexual and gender-based violence, which informs his work in policy, culture, and organizational effectiveness. I also want to mention that Emilio recently wrote a piece for us on HigherEdJobs titled "Navigating the Make-It-or-Break-It Third Year Review," which dives deeper into this topic. Thank you, Emilio, for joining us today.

Emilio (1:07):
Thank you for having me.

Kelly (1:08):
As we mentioned, this is an Ask the Expert edition, so we will be addressing a question that a listener submitted. The question is: What advice do you have for tenure-track faculty as they prepare for and navigate the make-it-or-break-it third-year review? Emilio, what are your thoughts on this?

Emilio (1:26):
My first thought is actually only tangentially related to answering the question. In all humility, I wanted to share that I hadn't really heard it phrased that way before. I don't know if I was lucky, or perhaps selectively and blissfully ignorant, but I think if I had heard it phrased that way, I might have freaked out a little more than I already was during the tenure process. I think that's important to share, because my experience notwithstanding, my advice for readers is that the third-year review, at its best, functions more as a continued diagnostic appraisal. What I mean is that by the third year, there's enough data in your package — speaking as an empirical scientist here — that you can actually glean really good information from the feedback you're receiving in the letters generated through this process. It's a good place to make a sound determination about whether you're on track, whether there are investments you need to make, or whether you should stay in a particular lane and continue because it's working. You should use the information available to you — both through the formal process and the informal process — to ask yourself: Am I reading this right? Are they saying I'm on track? Are they saying I might need to work a little harder in a particular area? Or am I failing to communicate to the committees the importance of my work and its impact? I know it, but maybe I'm not explaining it to my readers as well as I should.

Kelly (3:09):
Emilio, thank you for starting out by addressing the "make it or break it" framing. I imagine that being that far along in the process is already stressful, so adding the thought of "if I don't make it, I'm a failure" is definitely not helpful. I liked how you reframed that from the start.

Emilio (3:27):
Yeah.

Andy (3:27):
I think it's really interesting that the first thing you addressed was the "make it or break it" part of the question. That resonates with so many different aspects of a career path. This is obviously unique to a faculty career, but it can apply to anything — even to simply looking for positions. When you put so much pressure on a single moment and elevate it to that degree, the first thing I always think is: everything that goes up must come down. You have to de-escalate. The only two things that matter here are that you have no control over the outcome itself, but you do have control over putting your best self and your best work forward. I really enjoyed the article because it seemed to concentrate on exactly that. And reading it, I was struck by how much of this is a lesson in taking feedback. I would hate to wait three years for feedback. As a parent, you quickly learn that you're going to receive feedback from a young child on a very regular — if not minute-by-minute — basis about what you're doing right and what you're doing wrong.

Emilio (4:50):
That's right.

Andy (4:52):
Waiting three years to get feedback seems like it would be genuinely challenging. I realize it's more of a deep diagnostic, as you described, which I really liked. I thought of it like a 36,000-mile tune-up you get for your car — but before that, you're getting oil changes. Are there things you can be doing proactively, so there are fewer surprises at the three-year mark and you're better prepared for the feedback you'll receive?

Emilio (5:28):
I think that's really the core message here — it's a dual approach. One part is that you can only control certain things. I really love the way you articulated that, and I'd lean into it as well. The other part is that information is data. Most faculty consider themselves researchers, scientists, investigators. That's a language that resonates with them. If they frame the process that way, it's really helpful because you can't control who ends up on your tenure committee. You can't control what's happening with the department chair in a given year. You can't control what's going on at the provost level. But what you can control is what that process looks like from your perspective — and not just the work you do. I've heard this frustrate faculty often: they say, "I'm trying, I'm trying. I don't know what else I can do." But there are other articulation points where you can figure out what to do. First, try to understand the feedback for what it is. What are people saying? What are they implying? Why would they have that perspective? Also, share your materials outside of this focused formal process. You have colleagues, you have people from other departments you've met, people from other universities you know in your discipline. I've come to the conclusion that the folks who most strongly embrace the "make it or break it" framing are also the ones who feel they need to perfect their materials and keep them private until the big reveal. That not only perpetuates the high-stakes anxiety, but it also shuts off the opportunity to get continuous feedback along the way. You've essentially turned off the data. And data is good — data helps us understand, data helps us course-correct. The other piece people know but tend to forget: when you're in the middle of it, you can't see the forest for the trees. You know your discipline, you know your articles, you know what you've been focused on — and you assume everyone else gets it. You assume they know why a particular article is important, or why you've aimed to be a first author in a landmark APA journal. But as soon as your work goes outside your department, no one else understands that unless you explain it. And you won't know what's landing and what isn't unless you're getting feedback from people outside your discipline and department. It's reciprocal in nature. But the personal piece for me is about perspective. We tend to do well when we frame things constructively. What you said resonated with me deeply — understanding this process as data, as feedback, as something helpful, is really the way forward. That framing is something you absolutely have under your control.

Andy (9:03):
You had a wonderful quote — you said it was "how I was writing about that work that was important in this process." That struck another nerve for me. I want to touch on humility here, because I think people often confuse acting humble with practicing humility. Humility, to me, is actually a practice — it's the ongoing work of understanding your place in the world. But here's the interesting tension: if you practice humility, it can actually be hard to tell your story with the full truth it requires in situations like this. You can't hold back. Can you offer any thoughts on that? I think there's real discomfort in telling your story objectively while also practicing humility.

Emilio (10:16):
Yes. I appreciate the distinction you made. People often think humility means saying things that don't sound arrogant. But what I think you're getting at — and I think it's helpful for listeners — is that humility means being open to positive change and constructive criticism. And you can balance it with pride. You can be proud of your work, your work ethic, and your accomplishments. But you can also ask, in this process and in life in general: What else can I be doing? What am I communicating, and how is it landing? How can I be better? How can I serve people better? If you're always open to that possibility, the logical consequence is that you will get better. And when it comes to well-being — something we talk about often at the university, given how stressful our jobs are — leaning into that kind of humility is one of the best ways to practice self-awareness. Things don't get to you as much. You don't take criticism as personally. You try to understand where other people are coming from. You realize that when someone says something that stings at first, it's often more about their perspective than it is about you — and you have an opportunity to glean something useful from it that will make you a better person, a better professor, a better researcher, or a better teacher. That perspective shift is just critical to the process, to getting better, and to maintaining some degree of sanity in this demanding field.

Andy (11:59):
I really like that. If I can offer a shorthand: when pride works in service of humility, it's working well. But when pride leads, humility tends to be left behind. And in this process, that is not something that benefits you or your career.

Emilio (12:24):
Absolutely. And I'll share something I often tell graduate students and junior colleagues. When I first started out, I went to a large state school. I was a smart kid and I did really well — I was a big fish in a small pond. Then I went to graduate school, where everyone was brilliant. I had a mentor who was, in retrospect, trying to teach me how to write like a researcher, like a professor. But every time I received her feedback, it tore me apart. There was red ink all over the page, and I was reading it as: "You aren't that good. You weren't ready for this." I'm not sure exactly when the shift happened — with the help of some supportive people and perhaps a bit of psychological perspective — but at some point I realized: wait, she's trying to make me better. I need to receive this feedback in that spirit in order to grow. I had been told that you need thick skin in academia — that you'll have ten times more rejections and criticisms of your work and methodology than you will have successes. And if you let each one cut into you, it's not death by a thousand cuts. It's just death. The switch is in saying: it's not really about having thick skin. It's about allowing those experiences to help me grow. That shift in mentality made me a much better researcher. I'm genuinely grateful for the people who helped me understand that — though I'll be honest, it didn't happen overnight. It took time. I do my best now to share that experience with people newer to this field — not just my own graduate students, but anyone I can reach — about getting your writing out in the world, about teaching evaluations. Teaching evaluations, especially, can be a place where words really sting.

Andy (14:42):
Well, thank you, Emilio. I think that's a wonderful place to put an exclamation point on this conversation. If you're listening and have more questions like the one Emilio just answered, or you have thoughts about this conversation, please feel free to send them to us at podcast@HigherEdJobs.com or send us a direct message on X @HigherEdCareers. Thank you, Emilio, for joining us.

Emilio (15:09):
Thanks for making it fun — I appreciate it.

Andy (15:12):
And thank you for listening. We look forward to talking with you again real soon.