This study replicated the 1989 national study by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in which the relative importance of teaching, scholarship, and service in tenure decisions was examined. The deans of the National League for Nursing accredited programs (N= 187) and deans of Allied Health programs belonging to the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions (N=75) were surveyed to identify the core values and evaluation processes used in granting tenure. Most deans who participated stated it is difficult to achieve tenure in the absence of publication in refereed journals. The number of journal publications, reputation of the journal, presentation at scientific conferences, and published reviews of the scholars' books are considered critical in granting tenure. Furthermore, advising students, service in the department and university, and course evaluation by students were considered critical to granting tenure. Overall, the opinions of the nursing and allied health deans on the core values and the evaluation processes used in tenure decisions were similar, but divergent from those of the "health sciences" faculty members in the Carnegie Foundation study. These findings suggest a shift in the criteria used in tenure decisions today.