From Osher Doctorow Ph.D.\n\nIn my other two postings, I've expressed opposition to tenure and suggested that it be replaced by fixed unrenewable 5-year contracts because of the lack of Creative Geniuses and the over-abundance of Ingenious Imitators.\n\nIf we must have tenure, however, then I would suggest making it very difficult and based on research Creative Genius as follows, using as examples my fields of mathematics/statistics and physics.\n\n1. The vast majority of scientific papers make small modifications to somebody else's theory and should not be grounds for tenure.\n\n2. Tenure should only be granted for Original Theories with at least considerable experimental and/or observational support, at roughly the level of Creative Genius of the Nobel Prize in physics or the Nobel Prize in economics which several mathematicians have won. \n\n3. Only a few USA universities (roughly 10) consistently produce works of Creative Genius in mathematics and physics, including Princeton, Stanford, Chicago, U. Texas Austin, U. Florida northern branches (including Gainesville), CalTech, MIT, U. Virginia, George Mason U. of Fairfax Virginia, West Point. Three universities are close behind, namely Johns Hopkins U. and U. Maryland, both of Maryland, and Rutgers U. of New Jersey. This is not based on "popularity" or "reputation" among mathematicians or physicists but rather my analysis of published papers in arXiv and Front for the Mathematics ArXiv.\n\n4. No USA university other than those in 3 above should have tenure for faculty in mathematics or physics, though the Institute for Advanced Study for Princeton (located on the Princeton campus but independent of it) definitely meets the criteria for tenure.\n\nOsher Doctorow