Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate(chronicle.com)
chronicle.com
Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate
https://www.chronicle.com/article/ban-on-tenure-for-new-faculty-hires-passes-texas-senate
325 comments
While I think he's right, I wonder if that might still be a tradeoff worth making.
Or at least, a sane person could argue that it is. Competition between universities for rankings skews a lot of what happens in higher ed. The state of Texas could rationally think "we want to spend our tax dollars subsidizing the education of Texans, but we're not super interested in spending those dollars to fund the academic rat race."
The people who want to win that rat race will go somewhere else. UT will be greatly impacted but I don't think the overall scientific output of the USA will.
The people who want to win that rat race will go somewhere else. UT will be greatly impacted but I don't think the overall scientific output of the USA will.
I struggle to see how this benefits Texas, though. Education is an investment in the future; encouraging the best professors to go elsewhere is like saying you want the future to happen elsewhere. Maybe that's what Texas wants, but universities usually bring startups and high-tech jobs along with them.
It kinda reminds me of how Texas wanted to get in on the blockchain hype, so they passed legislation making it extremely friendly to Bitcoin mining, which happens to be the most competitive, low-margin, environmentally damaging part of the crypto ecosystem. Meanwhile most of the high-margin profit centers (exchanges, DeFi protocols, new blockchain technologies) remained in the Bay Area. It's like Texas is awfully fond of setting up selection filters and then selects for the mediocre.
It kinda reminds me of how Texas wanted to get in on the blockchain hype, so they passed legislation making it extremely friendly to Bitcoin mining, which happens to be the most competitive, low-margin, environmentally damaging part of the crypto ecosystem. Meanwhile most of the high-margin profit centers (exchanges, DeFi protocols, new blockchain technologies) remained in the Bay Area. It's like Texas is awfully fond of setting up selection filters and then selects for the mediocre.
How does Texas's research output affect its ability to pull in top professionals from elsewhere ?
The mid-west has amazing public STEM schools in UMich, Wisc, UIUC, Purdue....and yet their economic centers are in free fall. On the other hand, none of Texas's top cities had a top public school (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio) and they got by just fine. Austin's rise fairly recent. If anything, the sad state of local economies near massive flagship universities like UMass, Penn State, UFl, TA&MU shows that top-graduates clearly do not care about "sticking around" near their university, and instead just work at whatever the actual economic center is.
Waterloo is one of the top tech schools of the world thanks to a well run co-op program, and their professors have little to do with it. Top universities are amazing thanks to getting the best students and amazing undergrad teachers, who often tend to be PhD students or lecturers. Neither have tenure, so I'm not too worried about their ability to keep the momentum going.
Hell, I'm not even sure that the research output itself will drop. It's not like the total funding for universities went down. We might even see $$ go towards more competitive areas, and a further increase in productive output.
The mid-west has amazing public STEM schools in UMich, Wisc, UIUC, Purdue....and yet their economic centers are in free fall. On the other hand, none of Texas's top cities had a top public school (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio) and they got by just fine. Austin's rise fairly recent. If anything, the sad state of local economies near massive flagship universities like UMass, Penn State, UFl, TA&MU shows that top-graduates clearly do not care about "sticking around" near their university, and instead just work at whatever the actual economic center is.
Waterloo is one of the top tech schools of the world thanks to a well run co-op program, and their professors have little to do with it. Top universities are amazing thanks to getting the best students and amazing undergrad teachers, who often tend to be PhD students or lecturers. Neither have tenure, so I'm not too worried about their ability to keep the momentum going.
Hell, I'm not even sure that the research output itself will drop. It's not like the total funding for universities went down. We might even see $$ go towards more competitive areas, and a further increase in productive output.
There's a flywheel effect to academic research where good professors -> interesting discoveries -> grad students spin out and start companies -> economic growth -> good jobs -> halo effect for university -> more students, more budget -> better professors. That's how Stanford, MIT, and Harvard got to be so dominant. They spawned a whole ecosystem of startups and tech companies around them.
"Good professors" is a necessary but not sufficient condition to getting this flywheel going. You also need public/private partnerships to commercialize discoveries; a reasonably attractive urban area that'll keep students there; availability of venture capital; and a fair bit of luck with the initial batch of startups. But if you don't have decent teaching & research programs you're taking yourself out of the running entirely.
"Good professors" is a necessary but not sufficient condition to getting this flywheel going. You also need public/private partnerships to commercialize discoveries; a reasonably attractive urban area that'll keep students there; availability of venture capital; and a fair bit of luck with the initial batch of startups. But if you don't have decent teaching & research programs you're taking yourself out of the running entirely.
Austin is Texas's fastest growing city (and in the USA), and the metro is known as one of its richest. UTA has some role in fostering a tech scene that isn't as nice in Dallas or Houston (and doesn't really exist yet in San Antonio).
Seattle definitely benefits a lot from UW and its computer science department, but there is some cycle going on (Intel and Microsoft were heavy backers of UW CSE in the earlier years, and also took many of its graduates).
People do care about sticking around if they can. If the school is somewhere nice; e.g. in the Bay Area, Seattle, or Austin.
Seattle definitely benefits a lot from UW and its computer science department, but there is some cycle going on (Intel and Microsoft were heavy backers of UW CSE in the earlier years, and also took many of its graduates).
People do care about sticking around if they can. If the school is somewhere nice; e.g. in the Bay Area, Seattle, or Austin.
> Education is an investment in the future; encouraging the best professors
The best researchers do not always make the best educators. The best educators do not always make the best researchers.
Being good at research is a nice to have, but a facility like UT Austin should be hyper focused on attracting the country's best educators to help Texas' best students get (or create) the country's best jobs in Texas.
That said, the best educators are likely also attracted by Tenure.
The best researchers do not always make the best educators. The best educators do not always make the best researchers.
Being good at research is a nice to have, but a facility like UT Austin should be hyper focused on attracting the country's best educators to help Texas' best students get (or create) the country's best jobs in Texas.
That said, the best educators are likely also attracted by Tenure.
Does tenure really make the best professors? In my experience it only creates an incentive up to the point of getting tenure, then most of them hibernate until retirement and take up space without producing much because they have no need to. IMO a good professor is great even without tenure. If they are just trying to fake it til tenure pushing cheap research to then have them take up a slot and resources to sit around, I rather ban tenure.
I think you could have more non-tenure track faculty, but eliminating it entirely is a bad ideas unless you are willing to compete on price for top researchers, which colleges are largely opposed to doing.
The up-shot is faculty are going to look elsewhere for jobs.
The up-shot is faculty are going to look elsewhere for jobs.
Once you get tenure you still need to make full professor. The bar there is that you have to have made a name for yourself, and that doesn’t happen if you hibernate.
Here in Europe the term tenure is also used, but apparently vastly differently.
Here, "tenure" means you have a permanent position at a university. You can still be fired, but it's quite a hassle involving a lengthy process. Basically, you're guaranteed to stay employed given adequate performance, but your task allotment can still vary a lot. Eg. less publications can lead to less research time and thus more teaching duties. (Such a thing can lead to a spiral of ever-reduced research time, yes).
If performance keeps being under par after task allotment shifts, you may end up in a new role - eg. as manager instead of researcher. Etc. etc. Basically, things have to get quite bad before you're out of a job, but you cannot sit back and hibernate, or you lose your role as a prof.
Anyway, it seems that in the US, this is rather different. Or, at least, the perception of tenure amongst commenters is.
Here, "tenure" means you have a permanent position at a university. You can still be fired, but it's quite a hassle involving a lengthy process. Basically, you're guaranteed to stay employed given adequate performance, but your task allotment can still vary a lot. Eg. less publications can lead to less research time and thus more teaching duties. (Such a thing can lead to a spiral of ever-reduced research time, yes).
If performance keeps being under par after task allotment shifts, you may end up in a new role - eg. as manager instead of researcher. Etc. etc. Basically, things have to get quite bad before you're out of a job, but you cannot sit back and hibernate, or you lose your role as a prof.
Anyway, it seems that in the US, this is rather different. Or, at least, the perception of tenure amongst commenters is.
It's pretty much the same. Tenured faculty have a set of prescribed duties, particularly teaching loads. If they have a lot of grants or other duties that they perform, the teaching burden can be lightened, but they can't just decide to not do anything.
When I was in grad school there were professors who were much less active after getting tenure and a full professorship, but this was a fairly competitive school and they worked themselves to the bone to get tenure at a good school. They were obviously burnt out, most left. A few stick around and mostly just perform their teaching duties and some administrative/service work.
The top researchers were often not the best teachers, some of the better teachers had let their foot off the gas on the research side (the university wants them to do research because of how the grant structure works).
When I was in grad school there were professors who were much less active after getting tenure and a full professorship, but this was a fairly competitive school and they worked themselves to the bone to get tenure at a good school. They were obviously burnt out, most left. A few stick around and mostly just perform their teaching duties and some administrative/service work.
The top researchers were often not the best teachers, some of the better teachers had let their foot off the gas on the research side (the university wants them to do research because of how the grant structure works).
It's almost as though the state leadership is utterly incompetent :)
It's intentional. One of the biggest threats to authoritarians is an educated electorate.
All of this is part of a larger war on public education in Texas:
Book bans, accusing librarians of stocking pornographic material, pushing radical conservatives into school boards, accusing public grades schools of teaching CRT, passing blatantly unconstitutional bills to force religion into public schools (like the one forcing the ten commandants to be displayed today), and trying to defund public schools by pushing the voucher program for unregulated privatized schooling.
All of this is part of a larger war on public education in Texas:
Book bans, accusing librarians of stocking pornographic material, pushing radical conservatives into school boards, accusing public grades schools of teaching CRT, passing blatantly unconstitutional bills to force religion into public schools (like the one forcing the ten commandants to be displayed today), and trying to defund public schools by pushing the voucher program for unregulated privatized schooling.
As a practical matter I doubt UT and A&M will be affected at all. They're two of the richest universities in the United States thanks in large part to the Permanent University Fund (i.e., oil money). They'll 1) raise pay substantially and 2) tap their big-money donors to create professorial sinecures that amount to unofficial tenure.
If you get fired because of the legislature's antics, but still get your salary and have access to quasi-university resources (grad assistants and labs), were you really fired?
If you get fired because of the legislature's antics, but still get your salary and have access to quasi-university resources (grad assistants and labs), were you really fired?
The point of hiring faculty isn't to have a collection of impressive faculty doing cutting edge work. Otherwise, you'd get the same effect by funding corporate R&D research. I mean, yes, they can collect more federal grant resources, but that's not why a state government wants to fund it. Prestige is one factor, but it's not the only factor... because you're right, funding the rat race isn't the point.
The point is to hire faculty doing cutting edge work is that they train students. They teach others in a field. Then you get to grow the local knowledge base about a particular method or field. Hopefully, you're training citizens of the state, who then will stay locally instead of going to a different state (avoiding a brain drain). Or just as likely, you're trying to draw in students from out of state or internationally. And then (hopefully) those people will want to stay within the state, either for more research, or to start/join local companies.
It's not the primary effect of the faculty that you want... that's nice, but it's the second order network effects that a state really wants to encourage.
The point is to hire faculty doing cutting edge work is that they train students. They teach others in a field. Then you get to grow the local knowledge base about a particular method or field. Hopefully, you're training citizens of the state, who then will stay locally instead of going to a different state (avoiding a brain drain). Or just as likely, you're trying to draw in students from out of state or internationally. And then (hopefully) those people will want to stay within the state, either for more research, or to start/join local companies.
It's not the primary effect of the faculty that you want... that's nice, but it's the second order network effects that a state really wants to encourage.
you hire faculty to 1) train students 2) to do cutting edge work 3) on fundamental/basic research and unprofitable but important topics. academia's not just an internship.
The smartest people in a field are not necessarily the best at training, especially if they care more about their own research end goals than trainee outcomes and/or have never gotten proper guidance on how to effectively mentor.
Whether someone would be/is a good graduate student mentor is a total side dish when it comes to hiring and tenure decisions too. Grants, publications, professional connections, research topic/vision, are all more frequently discussed.
Whether someone would be/is a good graduate student mentor is a total side dish when it comes to hiring and tenure decisions too. Grants, publications, professional connections, research topic/vision, are all more frequently discussed.
Some are though. Sean Carroll immediately comes to mind.
https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral...
I don't have an opinion about the bill, but thought this anecdote was relevant.
https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral...
I don't have an opinion about the bill, but thought this anecdote was relevant.
I don't agree with this as a state policy, but I don't know if it is as disastrous for UT as Aaronson makes it out to be.
The academic job market is an absolute fucking bloodbath. Plenty of very qualified up and coming researchers struggle to get TT positions at major research universities. If they stay in academia, many postdoc for an absurdly long time or settle for career stagnating instructor positions (even though their focus had been research), or maybe just become a researcher within someone else's lab. An actual professorship at UT even if it were not possible to be tenured would surely be preferable to those options I'd think.
I guess it comes down to how badly you think the current system is performing at selection. But the competitiveness is absolutely insane, that part is objective.
The academic job market is an absolute fucking bloodbath. Plenty of very qualified up and coming researchers struggle to get TT positions at major research universities. If they stay in academia, many postdoc for an absurdly long time or settle for career stagnating instructor positions (even though their focus had been research), or maybe just become a researcher within someone else's lab. An actual professorship at UT even if it were not possible to be tenured would surely be preferable to those options I'd think.
I guess it comes down to how badly you think the current system is performing at selection. But the competitiveness is absolutely insane, that part is objective.
> An actual professorship at UT even if it were not possible to be tenured would surely be preferable to those options I'd think.
And also it includes a gamble that texas will reinstate tenure.
And also it includes a gamble that texas will reinstate tenure.
I got a PhD in computer science and considered going into academia, though I ultimately decided against it because there is only so much scratching and clawing that I am willing to do.
I was a decent researcher and to be honest, not having tenure at an good institution at all (as opposed to two tier TT and non-TT jobs) would have been kind of a plus. I probably would have gotten tenure, but I got so damned sick of chasing yet another brass ring. I don't have tenure at my current industry job (it does pay better, granted) and I don't worry about this at all. I do my job well enough that I don't really worry about getting fired.
What I cared about: quality of the institution (conferences, publications, collaborators, students, facilities), location, department, subarea expertise, service burden, reciprocal respect, salary that buys you a decent life, and ample opportunity to be successful. Tenure? That's nice, but the main advantage cited for it (ability to say controversial things) is long gone anyway. Profs gotta behave themselves regardless.
I was a decent researcher and to be honest, not having tenure at an good institution at all (as opposed to two tier TT and non-TT jobs) would have been kind of a plus. I probably would have gotten tenure, but I got so damned sick of chasing yet another brass ring. I don't have tenure at my current industry job (it does pay better, granted) and I don't worry about this at all. I do my job well enough that I don't really worry about getting fired.
What I cared about: quality of the institution (conferences, publications, collaborators, students, facilities), location, department, subarea expertise, service burden, reciprocal respect, salary that buys you a decent life, and ample opportunity to be successful. Tenure? That's nice, but the main advantage cited for it (ability to say controversial things) is long gone anyway. Profs gotta behave themselves regardless.
Agreed, I explicitly decided on a non-TT role because the tenure carrot isn’t juicy enough anymore. The non-TT role where you get a salary good enough for 12 months but you only have to work 9 just can’t be beat.
> More precisely, it would be the immediate end of our ability to recruit competitively,
I wonder. For one thing, tenure can be replaced by higher salaries. Who knows, maybe these universities will get more bang for their bucks that way. After all, there are industrial research labs that play in the same league as the top research universities.
And there are other forces that make people want to pursue academic careers. Academics are very ego-driven, they measure their success in prizes, grants, publications, so if these universities give them the means to do that, they'll still attract top talent.
I wonder. For one thing, tenure can be replaced by higher salaries. Who knows, maybe these universities will get more bang for their bucks that way. After all, there are industrial research labs that play in the same league as the top research universities.
And there are other forces that make people want to pursue academic careers. Academics are very ego-driven, they measure their success in prizes, grants, publications, so if these universities give them the means to do that, they'll still attract top talent.
> For one thing, tenure can be replaced by higher salaries.
Do you imply the universities will magically get more money somehow?
>Who knows, maybe these universities will get more bang for their bucks that way.
Scott Aarsonson knows. They won't.
Also, everyone in the field does. There's a reason tenure exists.
>After all, there are industrial research labs that play in the same league as the top research universities.
Same league, a microscopic fraction of the scope. The bottom line is always there, and it guides which research gets funded.
>And there are other forces that make people want to pursue academic careers.
...most of which are given by tenure.
>Academics are very ego-driven, they measure their success in prizes, grants, publications, so if these universities give them the means to do that, they'll still attract top talent.
As someone with a PhD in mathematics: absolutely not.
All that aside, great research takes time and persistence, and culture, and environment, and working groups. All that disappears once your core is transient.
Do you imply the universities will magically get more money somehow?
>Who knows, maybe these universities will get more bang for their bucks that way.
Scott Aarsonson knows. They won't.
Also, everyone in the field does. There's a reason tenure exists.
>After all, there are industrial research labs that play in the same league as the top research universities.
Same league, a microscopic fraction of the scope. The bottom line is always there, and it guides which research gets funded.
>And there are other forces that make people want to pursue academic careers.
...most of which are given by tenure.
>Academics are very ego-driven, they measure their success in prizes, grants, publications, so if these universities give them the means to do that, they'll still attract top talent.
As someone with a PhD in mathematics: absolutely not.
All that aside, great research takes time and persistence, and culture, and environment, and working groups. All that disappears once your core is transient.
> As someone with a PhD in mathematics: absolutely not.
I'm blown away by this statement. Maybe math is an amazing haven of curiosity, and if so that is good to know. But academic credit is half the damn currency of science, and it is 100% the main reason that many profs are willing to take a pay cut. This is something openly joked about by people at all levels in my department (biology), and of what I know from some physicists I am close to it is not great there either. Though this could also have some subfield dependence.
In biology tenure is hardly a direct benefit anyway because there's nothing much you can do without grants, and no one wants to stop being thought of as productive/smart. People chill a little after getting tenure, but only because 50% of them are basically fired at that decision point. Tenured faculty absolutely still play the grantsmanship game hard in biosciences.
I suppose in mathematics there is not as much impact that university status can have, because way less upfront money is needed.
I'm blown away by this statement. Maybe math is an amazing haven of curiosity, and if so that is good to know. But academic credit is half the damn currency of science, and it is 100% the main reason that many profs are willing to take a pay cut. This is something openly joked about by people at all levels in my department (biology), and of what I know from some physicists I am close to it is not great there either. Though this could also have some subfield dependence.
In biology tenure is hardly a direct benefit anyway because there's nothing much you can do without grants, and no one wants to stop being thought of as productive/smart. People chill a little after getting tenure, but only because 50% of them are basically fired at that decision point. Tenured faculty absolutely still play the grantsmanship game hard in biosciences.
I suppose in mathematics there is not as much impact that university status can have, because way less upfront money is needed.
My area was computer science and from my personal experience I saw a lot of what you're talking about. These people are hyper competitive and sunk a good chunk of their young adult life in this stuff. It is at that part a big part of their identity. There are easier things to do, it's not like tenure at a state university salary is some big prize for someone who is competitive at a top department--they have the smarts and drive to have much better salary and plenty of job security elsewhere.
I knew plenty of people who were total maniacs after tenure, it made no difference. Lots of people slowed down a little, but only because they were so fried.
Most research I've observed is still safe and boring (IMHO) because it's more likely to land papers and grants. No one uses their tenure to really do anything daring hardly--you can't, you'd fuck your students. They still need publications! So we were all in a never-ending publishing grind. With or without tenure it never ends so long as you still have students and care about their future.
I knew plenty of people who were total maniacs after tenure, it made no difference. Lots of people slowed down a little, but only because they were so fried.
Most research I've observed is still safe and boring (IMHO) because it's more likely to land papers and grants. No one uses their tenure to really do anything daring hardly--you can't, you'd fuck your students. They still need publications! So we were all in a never-ending publishing grind. With or without tenure it never ends so long as you still have students and care about their future.
> Do you imply the universities will magically get more money somehow?
Well, some universities are quite rich. The professors salaries aren't always constrained by the university budget.
Well, some universities are quite rich. The professors salaries aren't always constrained by the university budget.
> Do you imply the universities will magically get more money somehow?
They appear to gain billions upon billions of guaranteed cashflow from the government from all of state, local, and federal in many forms every year. Further, the vast majority of US universities/companies raked in huge amounts of cash over the last few decades, exceeding quite a bit of other industries. I'm sure that's as magical as it gets.
> > Who knows, maybe these universities will get more bang for their bucks that way.
> Scott Aarsonson knows. They won't.
Sucks for them, pay up, they've been able to afford it for decades.
> Also, everyone in the field does. There's a reason tenure exists.
Yes, its to entice their pool of 11,000 [1] and 16,000 [2] graduate students to fight over ~1500 [3] faculty positions across the US. And, the half that do go through to the PhD track will never finish, at best coming out with a MA/MS/MSE or whatever bullshit version of what is colloquially known as a "masters degree" they have invented at their company.
> > After all, there are industrial research labs that play in the same league as the top research universities.
> Same league, a microscopic fraction of the scope. The bottom line is always there, and it guides which research gets funded.
What do you mean? If by number of topics an single institution can have, then sure, that's a given (lets see the psychology department reproduce their results though). If by the individual topic, then I would beg to differ quite heavily. Lets talk about all the national labs, and while given that some national labs are also owned by universities, these labs are still private, LANL as an example for A&M since we're on that topic. Their scope far exceeds any department A&M has, depth as well, much, much more.
> > And there are other forces that make people want to pursue academic careers.
> ...most of which are given by tenure.
I don't think graduate students are quite that dumb, I'm sure plenty of them can figure out that tenure is not very likely, even if they first author 30 papers all of which get accepted into all of the top journals in their field. Unless they plan on getting rid of the competition somehow,
AKA the existing faculty as well as other students and post-docs. I'd love to see that brawl. I'd pay a few thousand for a Ann Arbor grad to fight an OSU grad to the death. Maybe Berkeley, AA, and Harvard could start giving a few classes on how the Unabomber did what he did.
[1] https://www.utexas.edu/about/facts-and-figures
[2] https://www.tamu.edu/about/at-a-glance.html
[3] https://jobs.chronicle.com/jobs/faculty-positions/tenured-te...
They appear to gain billions upon billions of guaranteed cashflow from the government from all of state, local, and federal in many forms every year. Further, the vast majority of US universities/companies raked in huge amounts of cash over the last few decades, exceeding quite a bit of other industries. I'm sure that's as magical as it gets.
> > Who knows, maybe these universities will get more bang for their bucks that way.
> Scott Aarsonson knows. They won't.
Sucks for them, pay up, they've been able to afford it for decades.
> Also, everyone in the field does. There's a reason tenure exists.
Yes, its to entice their pool of 11,000 [1] and 16,000 [2] graduate students to fight over ~1500 [3] faculty positions across the US. And, the half that do go through to the PhD track will never finish, at best coming out with a MA/MS/MSE or whatever bullshit version of what is colloquially known as a "masters degree" they have invented at their company.
> > After all, there are industrial research labs that play in the same league as the top research universities.
> Same league, a microscopic fraction of the scope. The bottom line is always there, and it guides which research gets funded.
What do you mean? If by number of topics an single institution can have, then sure, that's a given (lets see the psychology department reproduce their results though). If by the individual topic, then I would beg to differ quite heavily. Lets talk about all the national labs, and while given that some national labs are also owned by universities, these labs are still private, LANL as an example for A&M since we're on that topic. Their scope far exceeds any department A&M has, depth as well, much, much more.
> > And there are other forces that make people want to pursue academic careers.
> ...most of which are given by tenure.
I don't think graduate students are quite that dumb, I'm sure plenty of them can figure out that tenure is not very likely, even if they first author 30 papers all of which get accepted into all of the top journals in their field. Unless they plan on getting rid of the competition somehow,
AKA the existing faculty as well as other students and post-docs. I'd love to see that brawl. I'd pay a few thousand for a Ann Arbor grad to fight an OSU grad to the death. Maybe Berkeley, AA, and Harvard could start giving a few classes on how the Unabomber did what he did.
[1] https://www.utexas.edu/about/facts-and-figures
[2] https://www.tamu.edu/about/at-a-glance.html
[3] https://jobs.chronicle.com/jobs/faculty-positions/tenured-te...
those who become professors typically forgo vastly higher salaries in industry
I don't think this is generally true. I can think of a few cases of tenured faculty who could earn 10x their salary in private consulting but in my opinion it's generally not true. I think a good comparison would be to look at the average salary of something like Microsoft Research employees who are PhDs versus the average salary of tenured faculty of Computer Sciences at a highly ranked school like UT Austin. I suspect it won't be substantially different (based on job offers I have seen).
Although I don't know what a vastly higher salary means here, I suspect that the largest entrants in private industry for quantum computing would not pay vastly higher salaries than Scott Aaronson's ~$270K for work in that field.
I don't think this is generally true. I can think of a few cases of tenured faculty who could earn 10x their salary in private consulting but in my opinion it's generally not true. I think a good comparison would be to look at the average salary of something like Microsoft Research employees who are PhDs versus the average salary of tenured faculty of Computer Sciences at a highly ranked school like UT Austin. I suspect it won't be substantially different (based on job offers I have seen).
Although I don't know what a vastly higher salary means here, I suspect that the largest entrants in private industry for quantum computing would not pay vastly higher salaries than Scott Aaronson's ~$270K for work in that field.
MSR can pay well, but top flight universities (in CS at least) do actually pay pretty well.
But MSR is in some ways almost a university in and of itself. It has extremely good talent and is as competitive as many faculty departments. The appeal of MSR (to me) is from the research opportunities afforded to them. The product of MSR researchers is still mostly papers. In other words, they are still researchers and research (papers) is what they want to produce. They serve on conference committees, the works. It's easy to go from MSR to academia and back again.
The professors who give up a big salary are those who could take the skills they developed and apply it in a more industrial capacity, where their innovations are not public or published. This is worth a lot more to a company. Taking highly motivated and intelligent people and having them solve the hardest problems at the biggest companies in such a way (i.e., secretly) that gives the company a competitive advantage is going to pay quite well.
But MSR is in some ways almost a university in and of itself. It has extremely good talent and is as competitive as many faculty departments. The appeal of MSR (to me) is from the research opportunities afforded to them. The product of MSR researchers is still mostly papers. In other words, they are still researchers and research (papers) is what they want to produce. They serve on conference committees, the works. It's easy to go from MSR to academia and back again.
The professors who give up a big salary are those who could take the skills they developed and apply it in a more industrial capacity, where their innovations are not public or published. This is worth a lot more to a company. Taking highly motivated and intelligent people and having them solve the hardest problems at the biggest companies in such a way (i.e., secretly) that gives the company a competitive advantage is going to pay quite well.
I don't think he is correct. As with many other things, tenure is a benefit that has a cost: if you want to attract people without offering tenure, you just increase your salaries to compensate for the lack of a permanent employment guarantee. Tenure is worth quite a bit, but as the market for non-tenured research positions show it's not worth Microsoft Research salaries much, and very much within the budget of big universities since they now have the flexibility to fire people and don't have to think of each case of tenure granted as permanent cash flow going out.
The thing about academic hiring and academia in general that's interesting is that prestige is highly integrated into every aspect of the industry. It's also highly reliant on foreign labour, as they get an exemption from visa caps that both gives them the ability to hire from a vastly greater labour pool and also makes them attractive as places to work for smart foreigners. A professor position at a prestigious university is still worth a lot just for the prestige alone, tenure or not, as you get access to other prestigious colleagues, a higher quality pool of PhD students, and a sense remaining in the general academic community as a whole (although I guess we'll see if this remains true).
I'm not entirely convinced that tenure is a driving factor for faculty hires. It's true that traditionally, tenure-track positions are the "real" research jobs, and non-tenure track positions are where they hire the grunts to do some teaching at really terrible rates, but the reason that they can get away with doing that is because there are vastly more PhDs than there are positions for them, even in competitive STEM fields. This is why tenured positions have been mostly disappearing over the past decade. There's no reason this system has to remain, the tenure-track can just become the full-professor track, and nothing much has to change.
In my opinion, this will not have too much of an effect on the academic job market in Texas. The people that cared enough about politics to swear off all jobs in Texas were never really an option (oh no the gender studies department will be empty, what will the Texas politicians think about this tragic development), and the rest are still in the competitive market of academic hires.
I think, independent of this whole Texas saga, that the whole notion of academic tenure needed a rework anyways, as it never really made sense to me why specifically research positions have a permanent offer of employment. The whole notion of academic freedom is mostly a load of bullshit, if you don't write the correct things you don't get grants, and if you don't get grants you're effectively fired at big research universities anyways, tenure or not. What's left is a guarantee of employment that causes a great deal of inflexibility in the job market and on the institutions, and causes a great deal of risk aversion. The rework didn't need to come like this, but it'll be interesting to see what comes of it.
The thing about academic hiring and academia in general that's interesting is that prestige is highly integrated into every aspect of the industry. It's also highly reliant on foreign labour, as they get an exemption from visa caps that both gives them the ability to hire from a vastly greater labour pool and also makes them attractive as places to work for smart foreigners. A professor position at a prestigious university is still worth a lot just for the prestige alone, tenure or not, as you get access to other prestigious colleagues, a higher quality pool of PhD students, and a sense remaining in the general academic community as a whole (although I guess we'll see if this remains true).
I'm not entirely convinced that tenure is a driving factor for faculty hires. It's true that traditionally, tenure-track positions are the "real" research jobs, and non-tenure track positions are where they hire the grunts to do some teaching at really terrible rates, but the reason that they can get away with doing that is because there are vastly more PhDs than there are positions for them, even in competitive STEM fields. This is why tenured positions have been mostly disappearing over the past decade. There's no reason this system has to remain, the tenure-track can just become the full-professor track, and nothing much has to change.
In my opinion, this will not have too much of an effect on the academic job market in Texas. The people that cared enough about politics to swear off all jobs in Texas were never really an option (oh no the gender studies department will be empty, what will the Texas politicians think about this tragic development), and the rest are still in the competitive market of academic hires.
I think, independent of this whole Texas saga, that the whole notion of academic tenure needed a rework anyways, as it never really made sense to me why specifically research positions have a permanent offer of employment. The whole notion of academic freedom is mostly a load of bullshit, if you don't write the correct things you don't get grants, and if you don't get grants you're effectively fired at big research universities anyways, tenure or not. What's left is a guarantee of employment that causes a great deal of inflexibility in the job market and on the institutions, and causes a great deal of risk aversion. The rework didn't need to come like this, but it'll be interesting to see what comes of it.
nappy-doo(2)
Is that a bad thing? I think part of the problem with modern college education is the lack of industry experience and the another part of the problem is that professors are more interested in research than teaching
This comment presumes that public universities are the proper venues for this type of research. They're not.
The only reason people are foregoing higher salaries to work at universities is because universities have pushed private research almost completely off the map.
And even if public research is necessary, it doesn't need to be part of the university system. Ever heard of the NSA? They do research, yet somehow they're able to exist without being a university.
(Not saying OP is disagreeing or agreeing with the statement from the article).
The only reason people are foregoing higher salaries to work at universities is because universities have pushed private research almost completely off the map.
And even if public research is necessary, it doesn't need to be part of the university system. Ever heard of the NSA? They do research, yet somehow they're able to exist without being a university.
(Not saying OP is disagreeing or agreeing with the statement from the article).
> This comment presumes that public universities are the proper venues for this type of research. They're not.
Why aren't they? It reads to me like you are making the same presumption, just in the other direction, without the support you see as lacking in the original quote. Please forgive me if I've missed something vital.
Why aren't they? It reads to me like you are making the same presumption, just in the other direction, without the support you see as lacking in the original quote. Please forgive me if I've missed something vital.
How do you suppose that universities have pushed industry out of research? The reality is that industry has bay-and-large decided it only wants to do the development part of R&D, and leave the research to someone else. Universities have stepped in to fill that gap.
Of course this is messy, for example industry is very involved in the research in AI, but in places like medical technologies near 100% of the early development of everything from drugs to most devices is done out of Universities, and there is nothing stopping industry from trying to step in there.
Of course this is messy, for example industry is very involved in the research in AI, but in places like medical technologies near 100% of the early development of everything from drugs to most devices is done out of Universities, and there is nothing stopping industry from trying to step in there.
I’m skeptical that tenure is good for students, I knew so many teachers that just didn’t much care for their work and probably would have been fired if not for tenure. I understand the arguments in favor of tenure, particularly when it comes to recruitment, but given the bloated pipeline into academia, I’m not sure they hold.
At the university level, good teaching is a value only some institutions hold. They'll all say they care, but research schools are paying way more attention to grants, publications, parents, etc than to student evals. There are universities that prioritize teaching over research and, unsurprisingly, they tend to have better teaching professors. I went to a school that didn't emphasize research and never had a TA teach a class, for instance
Same here. I didn't have any TA taught classes because none of the professors I had were researchers.
Considering the number of near-poverty retail workers trying to pay off college debt, I think it's a good idea for the government to focus more on improving the quality of teaching, even if that comes at the cost of diminished research output. As it stands, the system saddles undergrads with tons of debt and not much to show for it, with socially disastrous results.
If a university wants to focus on research and doesn't care about undergrad teaching quality, let them drop the pretense of offering undergrad education at all.
If a university wants to focus on research and doesn't care about undergrad teaching quality, let them drop the pretense of offering undergrad education at all.
You found the symptom, but prescribed the wrong treatment.
> Considering the number of near-poverty retail workers trying to pay off college debt
> As it stands, the system saddles undergrads with tons of debt and not much to show for it, with socially disastrous results.
If you have a degree, and are working retail, and are near-poverty, then you screwed up somewhere. Your degree is objectively useless if this is the only prospects available after graduation - so why did you get that degree? Why didn't you continue into postgrad or change degree paths?
Perhaps we should stop offering student loans for useless degrees. Still offer them, but no loans allowed. That would go a long ways towards solving the diagnosed problem.
We've spent decades telling everyone they must get a degree to live a successful life - then we puppy-mill them into garbage/completely-useless degree programs, and are surprised when they go back to the same job they held in highschool. Now, we're going to forgive all those poor choices, because we think we did everyone wrong, but we're going to change not one thing to prevent it from happening again. Brilliant.
> Considering the number of near-poverty retail workers trying to pay off college debt
> As it stands, the system saddles undergrads with tons of debt and not much to show for it, with socially disastrous results.
If you have a degree, and are working retail, and are near-poverty, then you screwed up somewhere. Your degree is objectively useless if this is the only prospects available after graduation - so why did you get that degree? Why didn't you continue into postgrad or change degree paths?
Perhaps we should stop offering student loans for useless degrees. Still offer them, but no loans allowed. That would go a long ways towards solving the diagnosed problem.
We've spent decades telling everyone they must get a degree to live a successful life - then we puppy-mill them into garbage/completely-useless degree programs, and are surprised when they go back to the same job they held in highschool. Now, we're going to forgive all those poor choices, because we think we did everyone wrong, but we're going to change not one thing to prevent it from happening again. Brilliant.
I worked retail for 2 years after completing a master's in condensed matter and transistor physics. It just happened to be during a time (~2014) when that degree alone was insufficient in getting me a job, even an entry-level one.
I think barring student loans is part of the strategy. Also, focusing on financial literacy prior to high school graduation. If we must have student loans, then colleges need to publish data about graduation rates, job placement rates, etc for a given program, and let lenders determine if loans for that program are a good idea. The whole situation is maddening because there are so many loud voices blaming the literal children who signed for the loans in the first place but (as you say) nobody making any meaningful change to prevent it happening again.
I really wish I could go back in time to slap 18-year-old me before I signed on for student loans, but by the time I understood what I was in for, my options were "take on more loans to pay to finish school and get a high-paying job, or take on jobs that will never pay well enough to pay off this debt". The sunk-cost fallacy is supposed to be a fallacy but perversely, as it pertains to student loans, its the inventive to keep going.
I think barring student loans is part of the strategy. Also, focusing on financial literacy prior to high school graduation. If we must have student loans, then colleges need to publish data about graduation rates, job placement rates, etc for a given program, and let lenders determine if loans for that program are a good idea. The whole situation is maddening because there are so many loud voices blaming the literal children who signed for the loans in the first place but (as you say) nobody making any meaningful change to prevent it happening again.
I really wish I could go back in time to slap 18-year-old me before I signed on for student loans, but by the time I understood what I was in for, my options were "take on more loans to pay to finish school and get a high-paying job, or take on jobs that will never pay well enough to pay off this debt". The sunk-cost fallacy is supposed to be a fallacy but perversely, as it pertains to student loans, its the inventive to keep going.
Speaking to your situation - I've come to think that degree programs that only "pay off" after a certain level is obtained (masters, phd, credential, license, etc) - then there should not be an option to get out of the program until it's completed.
By that I mean eliminating the intermediary and largely useless degrees. You would instead enter into the Condensed Matter Program, which at the end awards a phd, and nothing in between.
This sort of program could still offer minors/concentrations and elective/exploratory classes, but the main degree program would only result in the final destination.
I could be persuaded this is a terrible idea - but the idea here is to eliminate the ability for someone to footgun themselves after dedicating 6-8 years to a degree that ends up being worthless.
By that I mean eliminating the intermediary and largely useless degrees. You would instead enter into the Condensed Matter Program, which at the end awards a phd, and nothing in between.
This sort of program could still offer minors/concentrations and elective/exploratory classes, but the main degree program would only result in the final destination.
I could be persuaded this is a terrible idea - but the idea here is to eliminate the ability for someone to footgun themselves after dedicating 6-8 years to a degree that ends up being worthless.
The problem is that sometimes, you aren't really cut out for the PhD. Or the program burns you out. What then? What if you and your advisor have such severe conflicts that a PhD (or whatever) is not really feasible? What if your advisor just decides one day that they're not going to help any of their students become part of the community of minds, so all you have at the end of all this is a piece of paper and no meaningful contacts to get a job? In my case, I was still clinging to this idea that I could be a college professor, and it wasn't until I got the chance to exit with a masters that I started to accept that I wasn't cut out for it.
The problem is not that people end up with "useless" degrees - it's a rare day indeed that I do something even vaguely related to what I went to school for. The problem is that we as a society are addicted to blaming 18-24 years olds for not being perfect fucking fortune tellers when it comes to choosing a profession for the next 20 years, with an absolute minimum of data or tools to collect or evaluate that data. The problem is that we as a society say "you specialized in creating and operating specialized widget 'A', but while you were studying for that, the market shifted and now we only want specialized widget 'B', and the consequences of that market shift are completely and solely your burden to bear".
All of this to say that no matter how up-front we are about what the end of these long programs is, we are still, STILL asking people to make the right long-term decision, while insisting that they are also too young to rent a car because they won't make the right long-term decisions. "You're too young to buy alcohol, as you might make the wrong decision which could lead to an outcome that will haunt you for decades. Also, pick your career, right now. Delaying this decision will definitely cost you thousands of dollars, waste years of your life, and disrupt your social development (but picking wrong will have the same impacts, but magnified). It may bar you from certain housing situations. No, we won't help you meaningfully engage with the question, or help you understand the right questions to ask. You're an adult now, no one is going to hold your hand, take responsibility for yourself!".
The problem is not that people end up with "useless" degrees - it's a rare day indeed that I do something even vaguely related to what I went to school for. The problem is that we as a society are addicted to blaming 18-24 years olds for not being perfect fucking fortune tellers when it comes to choosing a profession for the next 20 years, with an absolute minimum of data or tools to collect or evaluate that data. The problem is that we as a society say "you specialized in creating and operating specialized widget 'A', but while you were studying for that, the market shifted and now we only want specialized widget 'B', and the consequences of that market shift are completely and solely your burden to bear".
All of this to say that no matter how up-front we are about what the end of these long programs is, we are still, STILL asking people to make the right long-term decision, while insisting that they are also too young to rent a car because they won't make the right long-term decisions. "You're too young to buy alcohol, as you might make the wrong decision which could lead to an outcome that will haunt you for decades. Also, pick your career, right now. Delaying this decision will definitely cost you thousands of dollars, waste years of your life, and disrupt your social development (but picking wrong will have the same impacts, but magnified). It may bar you from certain housing situations. No, we won't help you meaningfully engage with the question, or help you understand the right questions to ask. You're an adult now, no one is going to hold your hand, take responsibility for yourself!".
I'm not sure increasing the quality of teaching will do much for outcomes. A little, probably, but likely not much. AFAIK the vast majority of jobs that expect applicants to have a degree, or favor those who do, don't do it because they need their workers to have a good college education.
I think if we increased the quality of education, say, 20% (let's just assume there's some useful measure of quality here, and that expressing it in percentages makes sense) across the entire country, it'd have only a small effect on employment for grads, all else being equal (i.e. those changes don't also reduce the number of grads per year)
From what I can tell, most people attending US colleges and universities are mainly paying a fee to participate in a scheme that keeps the unemployment rate down by warehousing capable workers in dorms, keeping them out of the "seeking work" category, and those students-but-potentially-workers are doing so because (they believe that) participating in that program gives them advantage in the employment market, some years later... but not exactly to learn anything, which is a secondary concern at best, for a majority of those attending.
I'm dunno how much of it was intended to work that way, but it seems like the main actual thing the whole system is doing now, whatever anyone's intentions were or are. Only semi-reasonable way I can think of to break the cycle would be to decrease the unemployment rate and keep it low for a long time, which ought to get employers to start "out-bidding" the alternative of "go to college, delay career" for recent high school grads, and to stop worrying so much about whether applicants have a degree.
In fact, now that I lay it all out like that, I'm pretty sure one of the core problems with higher ed is that labor is too weak, which has led to some really weird outcomes as far as how higher ed is treated.
[EDIT] Put another way, that seems perhaps less at-odds with itself than the above contention that increased university attendance acts to keep unemployment rates down, while I also think decreasing the unemployment rate might be a way to reduce university attendance—so many people are going to college, because companies aren't desperate enough for workers to offer many "mere" high school grads real money—they can afford to hold out for college grads, even if they don't really need them.
I think if we increased the quality of education, say, 20% (let's just assume there's some useful measure of quality here, and that expressing it in percentages makes sense) across the entire country, it'd have only a small effect on employment for grads, all else being equal (i.e. those changes don't also reduce the number of grads per year)
From what I can tell, most people attending US colleges and universities are mainly paying a fee to participate in a scheme that keeps the unemployment rate down by warehousing capable workers in dorms, keeping them out of the "seeking work" category, and those students-but-potentially-workers are doing so because (they believe that) participating in that program gives them advantage in the employment market, some years later... but not exactly to learn anything, which is a secondary concern at best, for a majority of those attending.
I'm dunno how much of it was intended to work that way, but it seems like the main actual thing the whole system is doing now, whatever anyone's intentions were or are. Only semi-reasonable way I can think of to break the cycle would be to decrease the unemployment rate and keep it low for a long time, which ought to get employers to start "out-bidding" the alternative of "go to college, delay career" for recent high school grads, and to stop worrying so much about whether applicants have a degree.
In fact, now that I lay it all out like that, I'm pretty sure one of the core problems with higher ed is that labor is too weak, which has led to some really weird outcomes as far as how higher ed is treated.
[EDIT] Put another way, that seems perhaps less at-odds with itself than the above contention that increased university attendance acts to keep unemployment rates down, while I also think decreasing the unemployment rate might be a way to reduce university attendance—so many people are going to college, because companies aren't desperate enough for workers to offer many "mere" high school grads real money—they can afford to hold out for college grads, even if they don't really need them.
US government should focus on making higher education more affordable.
In Australia for example college debt is managed through the taxation system allowing people to invest in the careers in the early days and then pay off their debt when their taxable income reaches a high enough threshold.
In Australia for example college debt is managed through the taxation system allowing people to invest in the careers in the early days and then pay off their debt when their taxable income reaches a high enough threshold.
America has affordable higher education; state schools and community colleges are generally very affordable. The problem is when naive highschool students get lured into taking on huge amounts of debt by expensive private schools that have no intention of teaching undergrads well, but nevertheless assert that pretense to lure in more suckers.
And when they want to live away from home.
The living arrangements are getting more expensive. My college tore down their old, low cost dorms. They replaced them with suites that cost twice as much.
The living arrangements are getting more expensive. My college tore down their old, low cost dorms. They replaced them with suites that cost twice as much.
There's an awful lot of students that held no job during college, and instead relied 100% on student loans to buy Taco Bell, pay rent, and put gas in the car.
The huge numbers you see tossed around almost always include living expenses. "$120k for a state school!" sort of thing.
The failure in reporting is those living expenses would have been incurred regardless if the person attended university or not.
As a society, I think we need to encourage people to work at least part time, if not full time during university - and take a slower path toward their degree. The result will be more experienced, mature graduates that have had time to evaluate their future.
The huge numbers you see tossed around almost always include living expenses. "$120k for a state school!" sort of thing.
The failure in reporting is those living expenses would have been incurred regardless if the person attended university or not.
As a society, I think we need to encourage people to work at least part time, if not full time during university - and take a slower path toward their degree. The result will be more experienced, mature graduates that have had time to evaluate their future.
While I agree that the high numbers are often because people are ill informed or even irresponsible about the loan, I don't think dragging out schooling is the best answer either, especially if you have higher earning power once you get a degree.
Also keep in mind the current system incentives - aid is inversely correlated with income and balances are forgiven in some cases. Why work harder if it means getting a worse deal? If one really wants it for "free" then there's always the military route.
Also keep in mind the current system incentives - aid is inversely correlated with income and balances are forgiven in some cases. Why work harder if it means getting a worse deal? If one really wants it for "free" then there's always the military route.
In my experience, most recent college graduates are effectively useless anyway. I say that as a once-recent graduate.
It's often thought, incorrectly, that university teaches you how to do a certain job. People go to university to learn how to become an X.
University isn't supposed to teach you how to do a job... it's supposed to teach you how to think critically. Along the way you learn, in varying depth, knowledge about specific fields of study, but that's not the same as learning a job.
Recent graduates are often immature (barely 21, who can blame them), limited in both depth and breadth of knowledge, and inexperienced. Most new hires have to be trained within industry for at least several months if not longer before they become productive for any business/organization.
Having students work part time, or preferably full time jobs while attending university would be a net gain for all of the above.
Working a job teaches teamwork and responsibility. Employees gain life experience, learn skills (learning a skill is the point, not what the skill is), discipline, and how to interact with others professionally and maturely. Basically everything university is not capable of teaching.
Working a job is complementary to an education, under this idea. The notion that university should be completed in four years needs to change - maybe it should take 6-8 years after all. The quality of an average graduate would be immense, and future earning abilities would be equally increased.
It's often thought, incorrectly, that university teaches you how to do a certain job. People go to university to learn how to become an X.
University isn't supposed to teach you how to do a job... it's supposed to teach you how to think critically. Along the way you learn, in varying depth, knowledge about specific fields of study, but that's not the same as learning a job.
Recent graduates are often immature (barely 21, who can blame them), limited in both depth and breadth of knowledge, and inexperienced. Most new hires have to be trained within industry for at least several months if not longer before they become productive for any business/organization.
Having students work part time, or preferably full time jobs while attending university would be a net gain for all of the above.
Working a job teaches teamwork and responsibility. Employees gain life experience, learn skills (learning a skill is the point, not what the skill is), discipline, and how to interact with others professionally and maturely. Basically everything university is not capable of teaching.
Working a job is complementary to an education, under this idea. The notion that university should be completed in four years needs to change - maybe it should take 6-8 years after all. The quality of an average graduate would be immense, and future earning abilities would be equally increased.
The issues you describe could be addressed in other ways. Your claim about college teaching critical thinking is misguided. While it's true that is the theoretical goal, in practice they're mostly just cranking out degrees and requiring a lot of memorization.
"maybe it should take 6-8 years after all."
This has multiple negative economic effects, such as delaying family and decreasing g retirement savings compounding.
"The quality of an average graduate would be immense, and future earning abilities would be equally increased."
I highly doubt this. Without the qualifications to work in their field, they would likely have limited benefit. If they are able to work in their field without the knowledge gained in college, then we should do away with that requirement and move to apprenticeships.
"maybe it should take 6-8 years after all."
This has multiple negative economic effects, such as delaying family and decreasing g retirement savings compounding.
"The quality of an average graduate would be immense, and future earning abilities would be equally increased."
I highly doubt this. Without the qualifications to work in their field, they would likely have limited benefit. If they are able to work in their field without the knowledge gained in college, then we should do away with that requirement and move to apprenticeships.
How much research do we need? Sure there are advances to make in physics, but do we really need another paper explaining why Richard III wasn't completely evil, or whatever similar activity English professors research? How much more research into the real nature of the Greeks do we need? Don't get me wrong, both are interesting subjects, and the thinking that goes into those papers is worth teaching/knowing. However the real reason to support most college programs is teaching to think (a topic hard to define!), not having the professors do research.
If you are a medical researcher there is a lot of useful research to do. Most subjects are of questionable value. It is unknown if knowing more about how quarks work will ever be useful.
If you are a medical researcher there is a lot of useful research to do. Most subjects are of questionable value. It is unknown if knowing more about how quarks work will ever be useful.
How much do you know about research funding?
For example, the fields you mention (sciences/engineering, medicine) pull in vastly more money that humanities. Because they have more money, they hire more faculty, and they also train and graduate more PhD students.
I knew a few humanities PhD students while I was in grad school, and none of them were funded by research grants. If they were lucky, they got fellowships. That's a stark contrast to engineering where both grant and fellowship funding was relatively plentiful (though I've got a few horror stories there too).
On top of it, humanities jobs are really hard to find (even more difficult than fields like physics that are already known for multiple postdocs, etc.), making it a bad deal all around for PhD students in those fields.
Overall, I think things are already allocated more or less the way you expect, and I don't think we need to piss on humanities for this. They already have it hard enough.
For example, the fields you mention (sciences/engineering, medicine) pull in vastly more money that humanities. Because they have more money, they hire more faculty, and they also train and graduate more PhD students.
I knew a few humanities PhD students while I was in grad school, and none of them were funded by research grants. If they were lucky, they got fellowships. That's a stark contrast to engineering where both grant and fellowship funding was relatively plentiful (though I've got a few horror stories there too).
On top of it, humanities jobs are really hard to find (even more difficult than fields like physics that are already known for multiple postdocs, etc.), making it a bad deal all around for PhD students in those fields.
Overall, I think things are already allocated more or less the way you expect, and I don't think we need to piss on humanities for this. They already have it hard enough.
Yeah I always laugh when I see people complain about people in the humanities scooping up grant funding. Like, NEH is already basically defunct. When I was in grad school for CS I was on a seven figure grant. My wife is a history professor. Her grants regularly run like $3,000. There is already no money being funneled to the humanities, but people choose to shit on it them incessantly because they haven't the faintest clue how funding works or even what the research output of the humanities looks like.
This is a pretty myopic view of how scientific discoveries happen. This is a good time to remind people that truth-tables were first created by Wittgenstein, who wrote some pretty obscure and borderline indecipherable books on natural language, placed well inside the walls of the humanities departments.
Philosophy of Language would have been dismissed by most making these types of arguments in the late 1800's, but it is one of the fields that was necessary and instrumental in the development of the of the universal Turing machine.
Philosophy of Language would have been dismissed by most making these types of arguments in the late 1800's, but it is one of the fields that was necessary and instrumental in the development of the of the universal Turing machine.
> but it is one of the fields that was necessary and instrumental in the development of the of the universal Turing machine.
You'd be shocked how many people in the software industry regard Turing machines as some esoteric construct that is of no value and wasn't necessary for the invention of the iPhone or Javascript.
You'd be shocked how many people in the software industry regard Turing machines as some esoteric construct that is of no value and wasn't necessary for the invention of the iPhone or Javascript.
Well thankfully people like you are in the minority and can be safely ignored.
Because learning more about our history and the world we live in furthers humanity in immeasurable ways often only appreciated years and decades in the future.
Because learning more about our history and the world we live in furthers humanity in immeasurable ways often only appreciated years and decades in the future.
In my experience Humanities professors cared way more about the classes they taught. It was the Engineering / "Hard Science" professors cared way more about the research and treated teaching undergraduates as a chore and/or an afterthought. (Though there were a couple of exceptions)
That's part of the issue in research though, you don't know what will have value. The actual problems that particle/nuclear physicists attempt to solve might not be valuable but the engineering required for the experimental apparatus could be revolutionary.
Even in physics or most of the hard sciences, how much important research is even being produced outside of the top (and may even second) tier, given the increasing laboratory costs?
Tenured researchers shouldn't be teaching, IMO. They can be doing research full-time, and leave teaching to those who care to teach. I, personally, dislike research, but I would love to become a CompSci professor and teach the next generation of software developers and technologists. The problem is, I do NOT want to do research. Give me a Master's in CS with some sort of "teaching extension" on it and I'll go teach and the researchers can go do important work researching!
Edit: for the upper division courses, researchers certainly should have some involvement, I agree with several of you on that point!
Edit: for the upper division courses, researchers certainly should have some involvement, I agree with several of you on that point!
My university had lecturers that were precisely this (masters in CS, focused on teaching intro undergrad courses).
However, I think there is still a lot of benefit from having researchers teach upper level courses. Firsthand experience in research brings an additional dimension that can be appreciated by students who are beyond the introductory level.
There are also tenured professors who are good at both research and teaching!
However, I think there is still a lot of benefit from having researchers teach upper level courses. Firsthand experience in research brings an additional dimension that can be appreciated by students who are beyond the introductory level.
There are also tenured professors who are good at both research and teaching!
I believe that this is yet another case of middle ground being the best: leave the bulk of teaching to specialists, but keep the research professors doing courses close to their actual field. Don't underestimate how educative teaching can be for the teacher. But this is certainly no big insight. Or are there places that do not, at least to some amount, do it like this?
The big problem is that the teaching faculty are paid like absolute garbage and have no job security or continuity between semesters. They are widely abused by universities and often are paid at or below wages you'd get working the cash register at Target.
You may be confusing adjuncts, which are part time temporary features, sort of line substitutes; and teaching faculty, which are full faculty members without research responsibilities. They are certainly paid better than Target cashiers.
You don't know what you're talking about. Research and teaching at the upper-division level can and should be two sides of the same coin.
I agree with your point that upper division courses need researcher involvement, but please try to be less rude about how you say things. This is a comment thread, so there’s no need to act like that, you could make your actual point in a nicer way and I would have seen it like the commenter above you and agreed that I overlooked this case. have a great weekend.
That's very fair. I'm sorry for being rude and have a great weekend as well.
If tenure goes away, then you have to pay more to compensate. If you're getting rid of tenure while keeping wages low, you'll still have bad teachers but for that reason instead.
A lot of people want to have their cake and eat it too: No tenure AND low wages. It won't work out.
A lot of people want to have their cake and eat it too: No tenure AND low wages. It won't work out.
> A lot of people want to have their cake and eat it too: No tenure AND low wages. It won't work out.
Sure you can. That's what the current system of adjuncts is like.
The problem is that you lose the people who are the most competent. Those who know what they are doing, have valuable skills, etc.
Sure you can. That's what the current system of adjuncts is like.
The problem is that you lose the people who are the most competent. Those who know what they are doing, have valuable skills, etc.
My own hypothesis is that many adjuncts work under such poor conditions due to an irrational belief that it will lead to a tenure track position some day. Without that carrot the whole market destabilizes.
Tenure is the key incentive in the academic tournament model. Other fields that do “out or up” (consulting, Big Law) offer major $$$ to the winners.
Tenure is the key incentive in the academic tournament model. Other fields that do “out or up” (consulting, Big Law) offer major $$$ to the winners.
I think this may actually be good for adjuncts, since the imaginary tenure possibility you describe can no longer trick them into accepting lower pay.
Adjunct salaries might have to rise, would make UT more attractive to adjuncts.
Adjunct salaries might have to rise, would make UT more attractive to adjuncts.
Adjuncts and lecturers dont do research nor do they typically do service. If one wanted to be educated by lecturers then they could attend a community college. That is of course a viable option but no tenure will be the kiss of death to any institution who thought they were going to do research at the R1 level.
"If one wanted to be educated by lecturers then they could attend a community college."
I'd argue that the vast majority of classes at a state school (what this rule affects) are already taught by non-research personnel.
I'd argue that the vast majority of classes at a state school (what this rule affects) are already taught by non-research personnel.
Correct. But universities want researchers because they bring in research grants (which provide the university 50%+ in overhead: slush funds).
It seems the state schools don't have as much incentive for that. The university president decided to build a conference center while I was at school. They didn't have all the money secured, so the state jumped in to pay a lot and tuition. Went up substantially. They're already cheap so the have no competition pressure and they know the state will bail them out.
>> A lot of people want to have their cake and eat it too: No tenure AND low wages. It won't work out.
Sure you can. That's what the current system of adjuncts is like.
>The problem is that you lose the people who are the most competent. Those who know what they are doing, have valuable skills, etc.
So, you can have your cake and eat it too... provided that the cake is half-off because it's not competitive.
Which is what Scott Aaronson said.
>The problem is that you lose the people who are the most competent. Those who know what they are doing, have valuable skills, etc.
So, you can have your cake and eat it too... provided that the cake is half-off because it's not competitive.
Which is what Scott Aaronson said.
> I’m skeptical that tenure is good for students,
I’m more skeptical of the motives that animate these decision makers. After all, these are the same people who ban books, insist on revisionist history in Texas school textbooks, and engage in all manner of opposition to free inquiry. Perhaps by some stroke of luck, it will be a net positive for students in Texas institutions of higher learning, but of all the ways of promoting the academic and economic well-being of students this would be among the most tangential.
I’m more skeptical of the motives that animate these decision makers. After all, these are the same people who ban books, insist on revisionist history in Texas school textbooks, and engage in all manner of opposition to free inquiry. Perhaps by some stroke of luck, it will be a net positive for students in Texas institutions of higher learning, but of all the ways of promoting the academic and economic well-being of students this would be among the most tangential.
Right. I'm surprised at the comments here that seem to be missing the bigger picture. If ultra-conservative proto-Gilead Texas is going after tenure, then that must mean the values we associate with a progressive good society are being incubated in academia, protected by tenure. Hence, tenure is good.
I was accepted to a UT Austin graduate program. After being accepted, I flew on my own dime to meet with the director and associate director, and several professors, because I couldn't imagine dedicating several years of my life and career path based on some paperwork alone.
The director was unfamiliar with my published work, which had gotten some acclaim and been featured _alongside his own_ at two industry events that summer. At one of them, I had introduced myself! It was a tense, 'look kid, why are you here?' meeting, that made it clear he had no idea who was coming to study in his tiny department and didn't care.
The associate director didn't show up to her office for our meeting, she was out of town. This was before the era of calendar-RSVPs, but she had confirmed via email a little more than a week prior.
That department may have been more of a mess than others, I never spent time in academia after all. But both of those folks had tenure, and I think it contributed to the zero shits they had to give.
The director was unfamiliar with my published work, which had gotten some acclaim and been featured _alongside his own_ at two industry events that summer. At one of them, I had introduced myself! It was a tense, 'look kid, why are you here?' meeting, that made it clear he had no idea who was coming to study in his tiny department and didn't care.
The associate director didn't show up to her office for our meeting, she was out of town. This was before the era of calendar-RSVPs, but she had confirmed via email a little more than a week prior.
That department may have been more of a mess than others, I never spent time in academia after all. But both of those folks had tenure, and I think it contributed to the zero shits they had to give.
If you want to become a good researcher, go to university to learn from good researchers. If you want to become good in some other task, go to a school.
Much like the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court judges, tenured professorship is a great idea that gets warped in practice.
Prof jobs might be researched-focused, teaching-focused, or a mix of both.
Some universities really pushed research, in order to go for grants and donations. It also helps attract grad students. They usually make less enjoyable undergrad experiences.
Then again, having profs that only teach, not research, can become very disconnected after a while. You may as well have a grad student repeat from the book.
I know a few tenured profs (and my partner is one). I think most of awesome ones are those not pressured to run after grants constantly, and those that brag about them are red flags.
Some universities really pushed research, in order to go for grants and donations. It also helps attract grad students. They usually make less enjoyable undergrad experiences.
Then again, having profs that only teach, not research, can become very disconnected after a while. You may as well have a grad student repeat from the book.
I know a few tenured profs (and my partner is one). I think most of awesome ones are those not pressured to run after grants constantly, and those that brag about them are red flags.
Agree. One major difference is between:
1. Technical TRAINING to do job X (rote-style)
2. Conceptual LEARNING to think creatively about solving problems and asking and answering novel questions—big or small.
Many of us on Hacker News understands the huge difference between this teo modes that has been so elegantly captured in Richard W Hammings “The Art of Doing Science and Engineering: Learning to Learn”.
If you want to be TRAINED then sure, go to an institution that does no research.
If you want to LEARN then go to an institution that does some research, better yet, a great deal of research.
I was an undegrad at UCSC in the 1970s—-no grades and great faculty who loved both teaching and research. I learned to learn and I still live to learn.
Now I am expected to TRAIN first year med students human genetics that will allow them to pass their boards. The boards demand insufferably ancient genetics—a cut-off date of 2001 would be fine-wonderful. But there has been a bit of progress in genetics in the last two decades. I tried to teach them a hybrid of the “classics” but with 50% of time devoted to cutting-edge modern genetics. I hate TRAINING to the test.
You can imagine my reviews as a professor. Who is at fault?
1. Technical TRAINING to do job X (rote-style)
2. Conceptual LEARNING to think creatively about solving problems and asking and answering novel questions—big or small.
Many of us on Hacker News understands the huge difference between this teo modes that has been so elegantly captured in Richard W Hammings “The Art of Doing Science and Engineering: Learning to Learn”.
If you want to be TRAINED then sure, go to an institution that does no research.
If you want to LEARN then go to an institution that does some research, better yet, a great deal of research.
I was an undegrad at UCSC in the 1970s—-no grades and great faculty who loved both teaching and research. I learned to learn and I still live to learn.
Now I am expected to TRAIN first year med students human genetics that will allow them to pass their boards. The boards demand insufferably ancient genetics—a cut-off date of 2001 would be fine-wonderful. But there has been a bit of progress in genetics in the last two decades. I tried to teach them a hybrid of the “classics” but with 50% of time devoted to cutting-edge modern genetics. I hate TRAINING to the test.
You can imagine my reviews as a professor. Who is at fault?
You can imagine my reviews as a professor. Who is at fault?
It's the system that's at fault. Remember the noncanonical version of the Monty Python Dead Bishops skit? The murderer admits the crime to the police (in fact the Church Police), saying "It was me, but the system is at fault." The police proceed to question everyone else: "Excuse me, are you part of the system?" - "Yes." - "Come with me then!"
It's the system that's at fault. Remember the noncanonical version of the Monty Python Dead Bishops skit? The murderer admits the crime to the police (in fact the Church Police), saying "It was me, but the system is at fault." The police proceed to question everyone else: "Excuse me, are you part of the system?" - "Yes." - "Come with me then!"
How important is teacher performance for students though?
What are we even measuring when something is good/bad for students? Obviously anything akin to directly abusing students would be bad for students, but I imagine we're talking about the quality of the education they get based on the quality of their professor's teaching ability.
If we are just talking about learning qualities, isn't the selection of students in higher level academic programs already heavily curated and biased towards students who have proven they are good at learning? Shouldn't this cohort of proven learners be resistant to any fluctuations in the teaching quality of professors?
Forgive me if my question shows a higher level misunderstanding, but I stumbled into my career in tech without any post-secondary education - so I don't have firsthand experience with any real academic settings.
What are we even measuring when something is good/bad for students? Obviously anything akin to directly abusing students would be bad for students, but I imagine we're talking about the quality of the education they get based on the quality of their professor's teaching ability.
If we are just talking about learning qualities, isn't the selection of students in higher level academic programs already heavily curated and biased towards students who have proven they are good at learning? Shouldn't this cohort of proven learners be resistant to any fluctuations in the teaching quality of professors?
Forgive me if my question shows a higher level misunderstanding, but I stumbled into my career in tech without any post-secondary education - so I don't have firsthand experience with any real academic settings.
The heuristic often repeated by folks in the profession is that you've got a top 5% of students who match your description of students who've proven they're good at learning, a bottom 5% who is entirely unprepared for university life and who knows how they got admitted, and the rest whose understanding of the subject matter is influenced by the performance of the teacher.
Post-COVID, lots of us (and you can find articles about this by conducting a simple search) have noticed that the top 5% hasn't changed, but the bottom 5% seems to have gotten significantly larger--10%, sometimes 15% of students in introductory level courses seem unprepared for university. I've seen functional illiteracy in some of my students at my good R1, for the first time ever. Our university is also on a huge enrollment drive, and are constantly hinting that faculty need to grade more easily to keep students happy.
Post-COVID, lots of us (and you can find articles about this by conducting a simple search) have noticed that the top 5% hasn't changed, but the bottom 5% seems to have gotten significantly larger--10%, sometimes 15% of students in introductory level courses seem unprepared for university. I've seen functional illiteracy in some of my students at my good R1, for the first time ever. Our university is also on a huge enrollment drive, and are constantly hinting that faculty need to grade more easily to keep students happy.
Some tenured professors slack on teaching, or were never that great at teaching to begin with. But tenure as an institution improves teaching quality. What professors teach is subject no less to academic freedom and the protections tenure provides than what professors research. Faculty subject to short-term contracts tend to have their contract renewal dependent on student evaluation scores, which study after study show are poorly correlated (and often anti-correlated) with student learning outcomes. Good teachers aren't necessarily popular; easy graders are popular. Conveying difficult subject matter that may be controversial or technically difficult to grok is crucial to learning outcomes. This is exactly what gets cut out when you lose academic freedom, become a cog of administrators who are out to maximize enrollments not learning outcomes, and have your job performance hinge upon student evaluations.
Here is how I look at it.
Major universities have two functions: (1) teaching and (2) research. Teaching is further split between (1a) undergrad (basic) and (1b) graduate (advanced).
You could definitely sustain (1a) without the incentive (or carrot) of tenure. This is how most community colleges work.
(1b) and (2) currently rely on the existence of tenure. Teaching advanced courses (1b) requires research experience. Finding people willing to spend their lives in research (2) requires some kind of incentive, especially in STEM fields.
As others have mentioned, to eliminate tenure, you need to provide an equivalent incentive. If you don’t, you’ll end up with a race to the bottom and a very probable exodus of academics to either other states or - even worse - other countries.
Major universities have two functions: (1) teaching and (2) research. Teaching is further split between (1a) undergrad (basic) and (1b) graduate (advanced).
You could definitely sustain (1a) without the incentive (or carrot) of tenure. This is how most community colleges work.
(1b) and (2) currently rely on the existence of tenure. Teaching advanced courses (1b) requires research experience. Finding people willing to spend their lives in research (2) requires some kind of incentive, especially in STEM fields.
As others have mentioned, to eliminate tenure, you need to provide an equivalent incentive. If you don’t, you’ll end up with a race to the bottom and a very probable exodus of academics to either other states or - even worse - other countries.
>You could definitely sustain (1a) without the incentive (or carrot) of tenure. This is how most community colleges work.
Spoiler: this is how most universities work.
They have teaching jobs that are either filled with adjuncts, or are contract-based; or pay such small salaries that tenure is the only thing that would attract anyone to work them.
Spoiler: this is how most universities work.
They have teaching jobs that are either filled with adjuncts, or are contract-based; or pay such small salaries that tenure is the only thing that would attract anyone to work them.
You’re missing my point. Universities that also do research cannot be sustained completely by adjuncts and teaching professors.
Also, a portion of adjunct and contract-based positions are filled by those seeking a tenure track position. Removing tenure will affect this side as well.
Also, a portion of adjunct and contract-based positions are filled by those seeking a tenure track position. Removing tenure will affect this side as well.
No, I'm not missing your point - I agree with it. My comment was meant to point that that to the extent that tenure could be gutted from research universities, it has already been done so.
Gutting it further would bring immediate ruin.
Gutting it further would bring immediate ruin.
Skepticism re teaching is fine, but tenure at this point is not given or denied based mainly on teaching but rather on research. Yes, UT Austin and TAM teach a lot, but tenure is driven very strongly by research performance and promise.
Has that claim ever been made? Tenure is done not because of good average outcomes, it's done because of an assumption that it occasionally results in some positive outlier with enormous upside that would not have happened without.
Agreed. It was a path to teaching 1 or 2 classes a year and doing whatever they wanted. I was at UC Berkeley in the 80's, if it matters.
[deleted]
I'm not sure if the core duty of a professor at a research institution should even be teaching vs research...
You can't believe how stale an introductory course can get when the teaching staff is left to its own devices and research staff looks the other way. And that's at a name brand top-10 university.
Man, I wouldn't hire out of here.
Man, I wouldn't hire out of here.
Tenure is like the jury system, in that it has a political and an administrative aspect. The administrative aspects have drawbacks (patent cases in certain jurisdictions, bad teachers unfireable). But I don't think that the legislature has the improvement of undergraduate teaching in mind.
This isn't a property of tenure. This is a property of schools not caring about teaching. Tenured faculty can still be fired for shitty performance. Eliminating tenure will not change the systems that encourage research output over other kinds of work.
The major benefit of tenure is as a protection for pursuing the truth when researching controversial academic subjects. It protects the behavioral genetics research which takes place at UT Austin from left wing attacks and the positions some professors have taken on Texas A&M's annual drag show from right wing attacks.
As a student in the Texas system, I've raised questions which my professors refused to talk about fearing political backlash. Tenure is an important institution. I think you can only go so far to incentivize good teaching through termination.
As a student in the Texas system, I've raised questions which my professors refused to talk about fearing political backlash. Tenure is an important institution. I think you can only go so far to incentivize good teaching through termination.
Not the law yet, but as Scott Aaronson (I'm positive along with others) has pointed out, this would make their universities vastly less attractive to various incoming faculty.
Whether that would be as impactful in STEM as in the humanities or human-interest areas like law remains to be seen.
Whether that would be as impactful in STEM as in the humanities or human-interest areas like law remains to be seen.
IMHO, right now, tenure is the only edge Academia has in many areas of STEM compared to industrial labs.
Other countries have suppressed tenure in the past, Denmark comes to mind, and this scared tons of great faculty.
Other countries have suppressed tenure in the past, Denmark comes to mind, and this scared tons of great faculty.
Even with tenure, you would need to be extremely passionate about education or research to go into academia in fields like software or mech/chem/EE. The opportunity cost is easily 6 figures/yr, for your entire career.
The hours are long, the pay is laughable, the kids are not alright, you must publish or perish...maybe these universities are intentionally selecting for professors who will have a high tolerance for abuse.
The hours are long, the pay is laughable, the kids are not alright, you must publish or perish...maybe these universities are intentionally selecting for professors who will have a high tolerance for abuse.
Note some good US universities pay entry-level FAANG salaries to assistant professors.
If you can negotiate a low teaching load, it might be OK in some cases.
Nonetheless, I agree with what you say. I'd add there is a ton of nasty politics, bullying, etc. which might be hard to avoid while you are on tenure track chasing tenure.
If you can negotiate a low teaching load, it might be OK in some cases.
Nonetheless, I agree with what you say. I'd add there is a ton of nasty politics, bullying, etc. which might be hard to avoid while you are on tenure track chasing tenure.
Please give an example of such a university?
[deleted]
According to levels.fyi, a typical entry-level FAANG job (L3 SWE at Google) pays $140k base salary.
An assistant prof. position at UCSD I was looking into a few weeks ago was paying $115-145k to identical roles in the department.
I know Google has some other benefits, like stock and bonus. Plus, compensation will grow more rapidly. And there are tons of high-paying SWE jobs, whereas good academic positions are scarce.
In Academia, it's hard to exceed $200k. Some professors often get $200-300k from consulting. But those I know that earn so much on side gigs are frequently gaming university IP rules.
An assistant prof. position at UCSD I was looking into a few weeks ago was paying $115-145k to identical roles in the department.
I know Google has some other benefits, like stock and bonus. Plus, compensation will grow more rapidly. And there are tons of high-paying SWE jobs, whereas good academic positions are scarce.
In Academia, it's hard to exceed $200k. Some professors often get $200-300k from consulting. But those I know that earn so much on side gigs are frequently gaming university IP rules.
Google L3 SWE total comp is $193k
https://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Google,Salesforce&track=Soft...
Base salary is the wrong comparison. As you move up to higher levels and get stacking equity grants, the liquid stock vesting routinely becomes >50% of total comp at FAANG -- i.e. you have to look at total comp.
It's not even close to comparable. Also worth noting: as a PhD with assistant prof levels of experience, you'd typically join as L5 (source: myself), which has total comp starting at $365k according to levels.fyi
https://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Google,Salesforce&track=Soft...
Base salary is the wrong comparison. As you move up to higher levels and get stacking equity grants, the liquid stock vesting routinely becomes >50% of total comp at FAANG -- i.e. you have to look at total comp.
It's not even close to comparable. Also worth noting: as a PhD with assistant prof levels of experience, you'd typically join as L5 (source: myself), which has total comp starting at $365k according to levels.fyi
But don’t you have to live in the Bay Area? Or does Google pay those L5 salaries for remote? Because $365k is more like $179-$200k where I live. And you have to work 12 months of the year, no?
I doubt that. What does UCLA pay entering STEM AI faculty?
FAANG salaries for MS in CS at or above $300k. Starting salary in genomics, stats, ML and AI in a very well funded medical college with PhD and 4-year postdoc is less than half that.
FAANG salaries for MS in CS at or above $300k. Starting salary in genomics, stats, ML and AI in a very well funded medical college with PhD and 4-year postdoc is less than half that.
FAANG don't typically pay someone with just a masters in CS $300K fresh out of school, perhaps excluding someone in a very in demand niche. I didn't get that from my offers and I had a PhD from a good school. Maybe I just suck, but I compared notes with my peers, so we must all suck.
From what my friends got in academia and industry, I'd say at entry-level, professors at good schools are competitive with FAANG salaries, particularly when the cost of living is lower where the university is located. The raises and promos lead industry people to outpace them though because of the lower ceiling in academia.
From what my friends got in academia and industry, I'd say at entry-level, professors at good schools are competitive with FAANG salaries, particularly when the cost of living is lower where the university is located. The raises and promos lead industry people to outpace them though because of the lower ceiling in academia.
Assistant professors (tenure track) in decent public business schools start at $300k salary. And this is in the Midwest. And I know that the top private business schools pay more, just that it isn’t public information like it is at the public universities. Now obviously those people would likely be paid higher salaries in the private sector (even CoL adjusted) but the economics of it ensures that pay for professors of fields in demand in the private sector will be at least somewhat decent.
Let's say that was true and I am calling BS on it as I happen to consult in higher ED at an Ivy. Would it be a problem if it was true that someone with a phd and 3 or 4 years of additional research experience were to make the same salary as a newb undergrad?
Note, where I consult, new 4 year grads get offers that often exceed the salary of their tenured professors.
Note, where I consult, new 4 year grads get offers that often exceed the salary of their tenured professors.
The opportunity cost is still likely 100k/yr for the rest of your life, even with the FAANG salary to assistant professors.
consider this: You can be a new grad, get hired at Apple, and earn an entry-level salary[0]. Let's say we won't include the bonus and you get 130k/yr. You colleague is a new grad and goes to a PhD program at Duke University[1] where they earn 33k/yr.
In your first year, your PhD program colleague earns 97k less than you.
From years 1-3, your average base pay will be 138k, and your PhD colleague earns the same wage. They now earn 105k less than you for each of those years. Your colleague is in the hole over 400k opportunity wise.
In your 4th and 5th year, you can expect to earn 141k on average. Your colleague, still making 33k/yr, is now making 108k/yr less than you. At the end of 5 years, your colleague has completed their PhD and is in the hole over 600k in opportunity cost.
Now your colleague gets an associate professorship position. This assumes your colleague is extremely lucky and does not go into a post-doc. They earn 115k [2] base at NYU. In your 6th year at apple you're still making that 141k. You're still out-earning them by 26k. Your colleague is on the tenure track, which can take 6 or 7 years. [3]. All that time you're getting more and more YoE, while their pay band stays relatively the same during this time. Let's say the opportunity cost is 26k over 6 years, so an additional 156k to their over 600k.
At full professorship at NYU, your colleague is earning 162k [4] after 5 years PhD + 6 years tenure track. You, an Apple engineer (probably senior at this point), with 11 YoE are earning 165k/yr [5] at this point. Your colleague has cost themselves 750k in opportunity cost, and you're still earning a bit more than them! A full professor may never catch up to the opportunity cost of academic track, salary wise.
tl;dr: EVEN IF you get paid 160k base as a full professor, your years of phd + tenure track associate professor salary will mean you will likely never, ever catch up with someone who new-graded at a FAANG and never left that circle.
0. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Apple-Software-Engineer-New... 1. https://gradschool.duke.edu/financial-support/tuition-fees-a... 2. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/NYU-New-York-University-Ass... 3. https://www.beyondphdcoaching.com/academic-career/how-long-d... 4. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/NYU-New-York-University-Pro... 5. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Apple-Senior-Software-Engin...
consider this: You can be a new grad, get hired at Apple, and earn an entry-level salary[0]. Let's say we won't include the bonus and you get 130k/yr. You colleague is a new grad and goes to a PhD program at Duke University[1] where they earn 33k/yr.
In your first year, your PhD program colleague earns 97k less than you.
From years 1-3, your average base pay will be 138k, and your PhD colleague earns the same wage. They now earn 105k less than you for each of those years. Your colleague is in the hole over 400k opportunity wise.
In your 4th and 5th year, you can expect to earn 141k on average. Your colleague, still making 33k/yr, is now making 108k/yr less than you. At the end of 5 years, your colleague has completed their PhD and is in the hole over 600k in opportunity cost.
Now your colleague gets an associate professorship position. This assumes your colleague is extremely lucky and does not go into a post-doc. They earn 115k [2] base at NYU. In your 6th year at apple you're still making that 141k. You're still out-earning them by 26k. Your colleague is on the tenure track, which can take 6 or 7 years. [3]. All that time you're getting more and more YoE, while their pay band stays relatively the same during this time. Let's say the opportunity cost is 26k over 6 years, so an additional 156k to their over 600k.
At full professorship at NYU, your colleague is earning 162k [4] after 5 years PhD + 6 years tenure track. You, an Apple engineer (probably senior at this point), with 11 YoE are earning 165k/yr [5] at this point. Your colleague has cost themselves 750k in opportunity cost, and you're still earning a bit more than them! A full professor may never catch up to the opportunity cost of academic track, salary wise.
tl;dr: EVEN IF you get paid 160k base as a full professor, your years of phd + tenure track associate professor salary will mean you will likely never, ever catch up with someone who new-graded at a FAANG and never left that circle.
0. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Apple-Software-Engineer-New... 1. https://gradschool.duke.edu/financial-support/tuition-fees-a... 2. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/NYU-New-York-University-Ass... 3. https://www.beyondphdcoaching.com/academic-career/how-long-d... 4. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/NYU-New-York-University-Pro... 5. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Apple-Senior-Software-Engin...
I get your using glassdoor and citing sources, but it's even worse, because someone competent enough to go straight into an associate prof position after PhD would guaranteed be making more than $200k at 6 years tenure at Apple, probably closing in on $300k.
But then you have to work at Apple. One the one hand, that's the dream of many people. On the other hand, I had some experience with people who went for that $300k, and Apple chewed them up and spit them out. They were working on a "secret project" which we all know was the driverless car. Such a shit show according to those people, so I'm glad I turned down the job. I hear the project is in zombie mode these days but who knows.
If you can put up with living inside of a police state like Apple, then maybe that's for you, but academia is such a completely different environment from that (very open and all about collaboration), it's hard to put a $$ amount on what it would take for me to put up with that abuse.
If you can put up with living inside of a police state like Apple, then maybe that's for you, but academia is such a completely different environment from that (very open and all about collaboration), it's hard to put a $$ amount on what it would take for me to put up with that abuse.
If you have a PhD in CS and you get tenured track position immediately right after finishing grad school without doing any postdocs, then I guarantee you can make at least 200k/year in your first year at any decently big tech company.
I have seen people with 2-3 NIPS papers and a bunch more from other conferences failed to obtain assistant professorship, it's ridiculous right now.
I have seen people with 2-3 NIPS papers and a bunch more from other conferences failed to obtain assistant professorship, it's ridiculous right now.
I appreciate all the research you did, but you're missing several key aspects of how faculty are compensated that changes your analysis.
First, faculty salaries as reported are typically 9-month. There's an extra 3 months of earning potential for professors, where they are effectively free agents. They can spend that doing research, or any number of other activities. Or nothing
Second, professors own their work product. If you are a salaried employee at a corporation, everything you do on company time is owned by the corporation. If you try to sell your work product or take it to another job, you will likely be fired and/or sued. This is not true for faculty; we own our lectures and all the content we produce for our courses. We can take it and use it other jobs, sell it as a book, make it available for free, or anything.
Third, we own our own time off the job. I'm free to run a consultancy even though I'm employed full time as an academic. I can make as much as I want through that, and people are willing to pay what I want because of my degree and my affiliation with the institution I work at. I doubt Google will let you trade on being a Google engineer while working at Google. Indeed, most FAANGs have a clause in their contracts stating that they basically own all ideas you think of, whether on or off the clock. If you're willing to take their salary for that kind of trade, then you might think it's worth it. For academics, they think perhaps they will have a good idea one day and turn it into a startup or patent it, and many do.
Fourth, I have control over a lot of other people's money. So while I'm not paid a lot, I get to use millions of dollars in funding and equipment. If I move to another university, I can take my money and my project with me. I have hundreds of thousands of dollars of sensors and equipment in my office that I've bought over the years that I personally didn't have to spend a dime on, but which is pretty much entirely mine to use.
All this is to say that a straight comparison of salaries isn't going to get you the full story. For instance, is there any amount of money you can pay such that you can take 3 months off every summer, and still have a position in the fall? How much would you pay your company to own an idea you had on company time? Do you have an office with a door? Do you have an assistant? Do you own what you work on?
First, faculty salaries as reported are typically 9-month. There's an extra 3 months of earning potential for professors, where they are effectively free agents. They can spend that doing research, or any number of other activities. Or nothing
Second, professors own their work product. If you are a salaried employee at a corporation, everything you do on company time is owned by the corporation. If you try to sell your work product or take it to another job, you will likely be fired and/or sued. This is not true for faculty; we own our lectures and all the content we produce for our courses. We can take it and use it other jobs, sell it as a book, make it available for free, or anything.
Third, we own our own time off the job. I'm free to run a consultancy even though I'm employed full time as an academic. I can make as much as I want through that, and people are willing to pay what I want because of my degree and my affiliation with the institution I work at. I doubt Google will let you trade on being a Google engineer while working at Google. Indeed, most FAANGs have a clause in their contracts stating that they basically own all ideas you think of, whether on or off the clock. If you're willing to take their salary for that kind of trade, then you might think it's worth it. For academics, they think perhaps they will have a good idea one day and turn it into a startup or patent it, and many do.
Fourth, I have control over a lot of other people's money. So while I'm not paid a lot, I get to use millions of dollars in funding and equipment. If I move to another university, I can take my money and my project with me. I have hundreds of thousands of dollars of sensors and equipment in my office that I've bought over the years that I personally didn't have to spend a dime on, but which is pretty much entirely mine to use.
All this is to say that a straight comparison of salaries isn't going to get you the full story. For instance, is there any amount of money you can pay such that you can take 3 months off every summer, and still have a position in the fall? How much would you pay your company to own an idea you had on company time? Do you have an office with a door? Do you have an assistant? Do you own what you work on?
> Indeed, most FAANGs have a clause in their contracts stating that they basically own all ideas you think of, whether on or off the clock
They can claim that all they want, but in California, that's not exactly true. What you do, on your off time, on your own hardware, that isn't related to a work project, is yours.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
They can claim that all they want, but in California, that's not exactly true. What you do, on your off time, on your own hardware, that isn't related to a work project, is yours.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
Great analysis and arguably much too conservative. But the assumption is that positions in industry are equally stable. In the world of startups not so much. And Google and Facebook making even FAANG look volatile.
That academia job is less stable. Bring in grants or go home. Compete with others to climb a pyramid that gets more and more narrow at the top.
Even if you are laid off at Google or Facebook, with those on your resume, anybody will take you, unless you are some weird incompetent fluke. If you didn't get a new grant, you'll have a hard time in academia. Good luck switching institutions once you are unsuccessful in the grant game.
Even if you are laid off at Google or Facebook, with those on your resume, anybody will take you, unless you are some weird incompetent fluke. If you didn't get a new grant, you'll have a hard time in academia. Good luck switching institutions once you are unsuccessful in the grant game.
This is good analysis, but this kind of analysis misses the point that money isn’t everything.
People pursuing the university research track may simply not be optimizing their years on earth to maximize their bank accounts.
People pursuing the university research track may simply not be optimizing their years on earth to maximize their bank accounts.
[deleted]
Since Texas is the topic: university salaries are public and used to be published in a Texas Tribune. A visiting professor at a Texas university, with probably no intention of tenure based on his career, was paid $340k/y back in the 2010s:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-creator-of-C++-Bjarne-Stro...
Of course he's not a nobody, but if Texas universities pay that kind of money to superstar professors, for small stints, this could attract people from industry that in the end are much more up to date on the industry's state of the art (vs the research state of the art).
The top 5 other professors (but probably many tenured) were making in the ~$200k range at that time too. In that part of the country, it's huge.
Ultimately tenure has a price. if there's no tenure, higher salaries would be offered.
Now the impact on student's tuition could be interesting, but if most of it goes to administrative staff anyways, who knows?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-creator-of-C++-Bjarne-Stro...
Of course he's not a nobody, but if Texas universities pay that kind of money to superstar professors, for small stints, this could attract people from industry that in the end are much more up to date on the industry's state of the art (vs the research state of the art).
The top 5 other professors (but probably many tenured) were making in the ~$200k range at that time too. In that part of the country, it's huge.
Ultimately tenure has a price. if there's no tenure, higher salaries would be offered.
Now the impact on student's tuition could be interesting, but if most of it goes to administrative staff anyways, who knows?
You might be able to cherry pick some outliers for sure. Just like at any company or institute. I can tell you from personal experience though that the going rate for a new hire full STEM professor with tenure at a prior institution was 95k at UT Austin in that time period.
A good friend of mine is an assistant professor of CS at MIT. He is among the most premier researchers in his field. I'm paid about three times what he is paid working in industry. My wife is a professor of history at a well respected R1 institution. I'm paid like nine times what she is paid. If we compare my salary to the adjuncts at her institution, I'm paid more than 10x what they are earning. All this after the pay cuts for remote work.
Paying Bjarne a lot of money is not remotely representative of the state of academic salaries.
Paying Bjarne a lot of money is not remotely representative of the state of academic salaries.
> Of course he's not a nobody
That's an understatement. He's one of the most famous names in computer science alive today. You can't look at the top 1% of 1% to make statements about the whole industry. $340k/year is a real TC range for no-name ICs at a FAANG these days.
The numbers you are posting are making the opposite point you are trying to make.
That's an understatement. He's one of the most famous names in computer science alive today. You can't look at the top 1% of 1% to make statements about the whole industry. $340k/year is a real TC range for no-name ICs at a FAANG these days.
The numbers you are posting are making the opposite point you are trying to make.
~$200K is about starting comp for fresh graduates at a FAANG. When a fresh college grad can make more than a tenured professor, it's awfully hard to convince people to take that first rung into academia, where you're getting paid a lot less than $200K.
Throwing more money at professors' pay? Maybe, maybe not. Sounds like a political loser to me.
The main edge is freedom in research topic (at least to the extent of what granting agencies are willing to fund), and freedom in publishing your ideas and results as you see fit.
Tenure is a ridiculous gamble right now. Getting a tenure track position at a major research university in most fields if you do everything right is something like a 10% chance after multiple years of dreadfully paid and generally poorly treated postdoc. Then it's only 50/50 or so whether you get fired after ~5 years. You don't know if you will be tenured until you're pushing 40, and in bio you'd be lucky to know by then.
The EV of going for tenure these days is fucking awful. Besides, almost anyone capable of getting tenure in a STEM department at UT is super employable in the corresponding industry and definitely does not need tenure to protect their job like a random grade school teacher. The only place it's helpful is if you start really questioning people or pushing buttons, but that just goes back to intellectual freedom being the real perk, not the job security.
Might be different in something like ML where DeepMind and OpenAI can systematically take talent, but seriously the job market to get tenure track professorship currently is brutally competitive, to the point it is straining the whole academic system.
Tenure is a ridiculous gamble right now. Getting a tenure track position at a major research university in most fields if you do everything right is something like a 10% chance after multiple years of dreadfully paid and generally poorly treated postdoc. Then it's only 50/50 or so whether you get fired after ~5 years. You don't know if you will be tenured until you're pushing 40, and in bio you'd be lucky to know by then.
The EV of going for tenure these days is fucking awful. Besides, almost anyone capable of getting tenure in a STEM department at UT is super employable in the corresponding industry and definitely does not need tenure to protect their job like a random grade school teacher. The only place it's helpful is if you start really questioning people or pushing buttons, but that just goes back to intellectual freedom being the real perk, not the job security.
Might be different in something like ML where DeepMind and OpenAI can systematically take talent, but seriously the job market to get tenure track professorship currently is brutally competitive, to the point it is straining the whole academic system.
> The main edge is freedom in research topic
The way I see things, freedom is a consequence of tenure. Or at least it was intended to be like that. If you want to pursue ground-breaking ideas, you might not publish for a while. If you are tenured this doesn't matter much. If you aren't, it's like playing Russian roulette with your career.
> Tenure is a ridiculous gamble right now
In some systems, you are tenured right from the beginning. For example, in British Academia, most assistant professor positions are permanent and it's not impossible to get one straight after your PhD. However, pay and funding is much lower.
The way I see things, freedom is a consequence of tenure. Or at least it was intended to be like that. If you want to pursue ground-breaking ideas, you might not publish for a while. If you are tenured this doesn't matter much. If you aren't, it's like playing Russian roulette with your career.
> Tenure is a ridiculous gamble right now
In some systems, you are tenured right from the beginning. For example, in British Academia, most assistant professor positions are permanent and it's not impossible to get one straight after your PhD. However, pay and funding is much lower.
In Engineering (especially robotics and ML/AI), it’s definitely not the tenure that’s making people apply for assistant professor roles. Almost everyone I met did it only because they want the freedom to pick the research direction and work on challenging problems. A few genuinely like teaching, but that’s about it.
>Other countries have suppressed tenure in the past, Denmark comes to mind
I could be wrong but I don't think it's correct
https://employment.ku.dk/tenure-track/tenure-track-at-ucph/
any links on that?
I could be wrong but I don't think it's correct
https://employment.ku.dk/tenure-track/tenure-track-at-ucph/
any links on that?
They call it like that, but you can be fired anytime, even if you are a full professor.
Ok I did some more research and I guess you're right
although I haven't found anything exactly authoritative about what exactly it means
http://www.informationsordbogen.dk/concept_comment.php?cid=6...
https://www.forskerforum.dk/aktuelt/2022/august/tysk-forsker...
however in Denmark there is more protection in general against getting fired than in the U.S although not as much as other European countries, also a period when you've been let go you have severance, I think most I.T jobs are 3 months although I have seen some situations where it's 4 months. Maybe it's longer for academia.
http://www.informationsordbogen.dk/concept_comment.php?cid=6...
https://www.forskerforum.dk/aktuelt/2022/august/tysk-forsker...
however in Denmark there is more protection in general against getting fired than in the U.S although not as much as other European countries, also a period when you've been let go you have severance, I think most I.T jobs are 3 months although I have seen some situations where it's 4 months. Maybe it's longer for academia.
> IMHO, right now, tenure is the only edge Academia has in many areas of STEM compared to industrial labs.
This.
Even with tenure in place, I'd never go to academia. So much politics, worry about grants, immobility in what to do research in, low compensation compared to industry jobs, so much frustration, frustrated and bitter colleagues... It's terrible. I love working with colleagues that all have the best interest of the workplace in mind. I find that in industry a lot. In academia it's really rare.
This.
Even with tenure in place, I'd never go to academia. So much politics, worry about grants, immobility in what to do research in, low compensation compared to industry jobs, so much frustration, frustrated and bitter colleagues... It's terrible. I love working with colleagues that all have the best interest of the workplace in mind. I find that in industry a lot. In academia it's really rare.
And even tenured UT or A&M professors will seek to move out to tenured positions elsewhere because no one wants to go down with a sinking ship. This is a singularly bad idea as Texas had successfully transitioned from being a resource extraction economy to a technology and medical one.
> this would make their universities vastly less attractive to various incoming faculty
...but given the flood state of the academic labor market, still rather attractive.
...but given the flood state of the academic labor market, still rather attractive.
I doubt they will have much problem finding people who are qualified to teach.
But it's going to make it more difficult to continue hiring people who are seen as some of the best in the world in in-demand areas.
But it's going to make it more difficult to continue hiring people who are seen as some of the best in the world in in-demand areas.
> I doubt they will have much problem finding people who are qualified to teach.
There's some ambiguity there.
In my experience, it's not necessarily hard to find someone whose credentials match job requirements wrt. teaching. Finding a good teacher for an academic position can be quite hard though.
There's some ambiguity there.
In my experience, it's not necessarily hard to find someone whose credentials match job requirements wrt. teaching. Finding a good teacher for an academic position can be quite hard though.
I would think a top performer would like least the tenure system, as they're in demand but their job outlook stunted by (perhaps numerical minority) crusty elements that can't be supplanted.
I would disagree but only, specifically, academia's already broken system. Tenure takes the heat off an academic such that they can deeply, deeply study a system. Academia's still stuck in lines-of-code style measuring sticks of performance so the rush to tenure is often pumping out salami slices worth of papers to secure future funds.
The thing that I don’t understand is that:
* Academics say publish or perish is terrible and produces warped incentives.
* Academics say they need tenure to protect senior researchers from the publish or perish system.
* But academics seem to be the ones building grant and advancement systems that enforce “publish or perish”.
I don’t get it - it certainly sounds like tenure mostly protects senior academics from systems they built themselves. If publish or perish is so bad why don’t senior members of departments build advancement opportunities that don’t rely on impact factor? Cynically, it almost feels like tenure is enforcing publish or perish, because those with tenure set the rules and the current system protects those who are tenured.
Furthermore, I don’t see why the sort of “deep study” research that the idealized tenured researcher does would need special protection. If the researcher has a track record of success surely the department would tolerate a brief lull in publications while they work on their Magnum Opus? Private industry frequently does multi-year deep research projects without the need for tenure systems.
* Academics say publish or perish is terrible and produces warped incentives.
* Academics say they need tenure to protect senior researchers from the publish or perish system.
* But academics seem to be the ones building grant and advancement systems that enforce “publish or perish”.
I don’t get it - it certainly sounds like tenure mostly protects senior academics from systems they built themselves. If publish or perish is so bad why don’t senior members of departments build advancement opportunities that don’t rely on impact factor? Cynically, it almost feels like tenure is enforcing publish or perish, because those with tenure set the rules and the current system protects those who are tenured.
Furthermore, I don’t see why the sort of “deep study” research that the idealized tenured researcher does would need special protection. If the researcher has a track record of success surely the department would tolerate a brief lull in publications while they work on their Magnum Opus? Private industry frequently does multi-year deep research projects without the need for tenure systems.
I think your incorrect assumption is that tenured faculty are running and shaping the universities. Much has been written about the rise of different class in the academy: administrators. For a somewhat extreme position look here [1]. And even tenured faculty are subjected to the performance assessments that can seriously hinder their research agenda. As the saying goes: Tenure has never protected those who really needed it.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2018/05/10/kill-a...
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2018/05/10/kill-a...
Ahmen!
The few people I know with tenure are just happy to be out of the academic grind, as it's absolutely brutal. Being tenured also doesn't lock you into a specific university- one of my professors had tenure but took a job elsewhere on a tenure track.
[deleted]
Really? The whole grind in academia for new hires is to get a job on the tenure track.
Honestly, it may not be a bad thing. Tenure was meant to protect the academic freedom, and pursuit of the long-term scientific research. Today, most academics chase money, grants, trends, citations and status.
It’s a job like any other, and doesn’t need protection, at cost to those outside the ivory tower (unless perhaps for a very small subset).
It’s a job like any other, and doesn’t need protection, at cost to those outside the ivory tower (unless perhaps for a very small subset).
The change in academia is largely correlated with the fall-off of tenured positions in favor of adjunct faculty and the explosion of administration. I don't think it indicates that there is no need for tenure, but rather that tenure provided a bulwark against the very outcomes we now are seeing.
Heavy government involvement in student loans created a perverse incentive to bloat costs (administration) and increase tuitions.
Classic bureaucratization, really... when the buyer and the seller of something (e.g. a university degree) are disconnected by way of, say, a flood of cheap student loans, the incentive structure for the bureaucracy is to increase its own budget, staff, and therefore power.
It's no wonder that administration has exploded along with tuitions.
Lack of tenured positions really has very little to do with it.
Classic bureaucratization, really... when the buyer and the seller of something (e.g. a university degree) are disconnected by way of, say, a flood of cheap student loans, the incentive structure for the bureaucracy is to increase its own budget, staff, and therefore power.
It's no wonder that administration has exploded along with tuitions.
Lack of tenured positions really has very little to do with it.
Heavy government involvement with public universities in the form of subsidies once made public education free in some states and low tuition everywhere. As government subsidies have decreased, tuition costs have risen to compensate. The state paid 75% of the costs to educate a student in the closest university to me in 2005, but paid less than 25% of those costs in 2020.
Lower subsidies led to a reduction in tenured positions to reduce educational costs as well as to a rapid expansion of administrators whose job it is to obtain funds from donations, grants, and corporations. Unfunded government mandates like Title IX and so forth have also led to the expansion of the administration and increasing education costs.
Lower subsidies led to a reduction in tenured positions to reduce educational costs as well as to a rapid expansion of administrators whose job it is to obtain funds from donations, grants, and corporations. Unfunded government mandates like Title IX and so forth have also led to the expansion of the administration and increasing education costs.
In some sense, everyone is adjunct. People who work in industry have fixed-term renewable contracts. If job security is to be offered, extend it to other professions as well, as French do (with their CDI contracts).
The main point is, professors don’t need life-time protection in many fields where research is increasingly focused on obtaining results in short term, and has become money driven. The gap between the type of research in academia and industry is not that much in many areas.
Perhaps a 5-years contract model would work better: a performance review every 5 years. Professors get some job security if they want to pursue problems sometime ahead of the industry. The duration could depend on the field.
The main point is, professors don’t need life-time protection in many fields where research is increasingly focused on obtaining results in short term, and has become money driven. The gap between the type of research in academia and industry is not that much in many areas.
Perhaps a 5-years contract model would work better: a performance review every 5 years. Professors get some job security if they want to pursue problems sometime ahead of the industry. The duration could depend on the field.
Most industry positions are much better than adjunct positions. Adjunct faculty are temporary part-time workers who teach one or two classes per term. They are paid $1000-4000 per class without benefits, which is less than minimum wage when you count time to prepare for class, grade, and interact with students outside of class. A quarter of adjuncts depend on public assistance programs like food stamps to survive.
> If job security is to be offered, extend it to other professions as well, as French do (with their CDI contracts).
A French CDI contract doesn't mean job security. You can be fired for low performance, or for economical reasons. You'll get a few months salary in the process, a couple of months notice, but they'll fire you if they want too.
A French CDI contract doesn't mean job security. You can be fired for low performance, or for economical reasons. You'll get a few months salary in the process, a couple of months notice, but they'll fire you if they want too.
The new trend now is not adjunct faculty, but well-paid lecturers with 5-year contracts instead of tenure.
What if we started an institution that automated most of the admin, hired and based admissions on pure skill/ability/talent? It seems to me that something so simple couldn't possibly work...
"hired and based admissions on pure skill/ability/talent?"
Nobody agrees on what this looks like. So you're just asking for a big fight about that - exactly the kind that already happens for admissions.
Nobody agrees on what this looks like. So you're just asking for a big fight about that - exactly the kind that already happens for admissions.
> It seems to me that something so simple couldn't possibly work...
Well, what kind of knowledge do you have of university internals?
Most people here on HN who want to get rid of university admin are on the outside looking in, and find it very hard to understand what all the admin do.
In my experience, when I start to explain that a university is more like a town than a school, and "admin" are in fact the people who run the town and implement the services, it becomes very hard to identify where the cuts should be. The library? IT? Health center? police? The arts complex and associated services? The sports complex and associated services? The transportation system?
And before you say these aren't the prerogative of a university, because a university is just a school, and it shouldn't offer these things, I have two responses. One, you're thinking of a "college". Two, if universities get rid of these services, often times the local town cannot replace them. So how are they to manage?
So if you're having trouble understanding why a university can't simply cut or automate all the administrators, it could be because you don't have a clear understanding of their role and why they are crucial. Universities require bureaucracies and they don't scale linearly with the size of the student population.
Well, what kind of knowledge do you have of university internals?
Most people here on HN who want to get rid of university admin are on the outside looking in, and find it very hard to understand what all the admin do.
In my experience, when I start to explain that a university is more like a town than a school, and "admin" are in fact the people who run the town and implement the services, it becomes very hard to identify where the cuts should be. The library? IT? Health center? police? The arts complex and associated services? The sports complex and associated services? The transportation system?
And before you say these aren't the prerogative of a university, because a university is just a school, and it shouldn't offer these things, I have two responses. One, you're thinking of a "college". Two, if universities get rid of these services, often times the local town cannot replace them. So how are they to manage?
So if you're having trouble understanding why a university can't simply cut or automate all the administrators, it could be because you don't have a clear understanding of their role and why they are crucial. Universities require bureaucracies and they don't scale linearly with the size of the student population.
Here's the problem with your "admins are so absolutely necessary" argument.
Per https://mndaily.com/193678/uncategorized/statistics-show-inc... between 1999 and 2010 admin jobs increased 75% across universities.
Per https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/11/10/reluctance-on-the-... over the last 20 years, the number of managerial and professional staff that Yale employs has risen three times faster than the undergraduate student body.
So were universities in 2000 providing unacceptable level of admin service or was the level of service just fine and they got bloated because they could, not because they needed to?
Per https://mndaily.com/193678/uncategorized/statistics-show-inc... between 1999 and 2010 admin jobs increased 75% across universities.
Per https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/11/10/reluctance-on-the-... over the last 20 years, the number of managerial and professional staff that Yale employs has risen three times faster than the undergraduate student body.
So were universities in 2000 providing unacceptable level of admin service or was the level of service just fine and they got bloated because they could, not because they needed to?
Bureaucracies bloat because they gradually fill up with the sort of bureaucrats who seek foremost to expand their own dominion. From the individual perspective of such a bureaucrat, the more people they have working under them, the more important they are. From this individual selfish incentive, bureaucratic bloat becomes an emergent phenomenon.
Or put another way:
> Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":
> First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.
> Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.
> The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.
Or put another way:
> Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":
> First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.
> Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.
> The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.
OK but you also have to measure the services the university provides to students through the increase in administration. Things listed already in this thread articulate that students desire these services.
I think if you seriously looked at the difference in the level/sophistication of services over those 20 years, it explains the vast majority of the bloat.
Students are getting what they pay for, and ultimately they demand greater services.
I think if you seriously looked at the difference in the level/sophistication of services over those 20 years, it explains the vast majority of the bloat.
Students are getting what they pay for, and ultimately they demand greater services.
> the number of managerial and professional staff that Yale employs has risen three times faster than the undergraduate student body.
Implicit here is that there is or should be some sort of linear or sublinear relationship to admin and the student body. If the number of admin grows faster than the student body, is that strange, and is it bad?
1) is that strange?
It's not clear this is strange. First, Universities are highly modular organizations, so there's a lot of duplicated effort. Let's say it takes 5 faculty, and 3 admin to run a department that services 10 students. We open a new department and double our students, so we have 10 faculty, 6 admin, and 20 students. But now with all those students, we need two Teaching Assistants. Turns out that hiring an admin to manage the teaching assistants frees 2 faculty to do more research, so we hire another admin to do that. Student population stays the same. The students need a health center now because the local health facilities are insufficient, so now we need to open a whole health center and that requires 3 new staff with 2 admins. So admin has grown again with no new students.
You see how this can go? For a place line Yale or Stanford, which offer full hospitals, law schools, giant sport facilities, manages dozens of buildings, hundreds of programs and degrees, food services, safety services, IT services, library services... all of these things require coordination and management, and that can easily balloon without adding a single new student.
2) is that bad?
Now, the argument is usually that the students don't need all these things. Well first of all, the standards are much higher than they were even when I was in school in the 2000s. Back then research at an undergraduate level was optional, these days it's required or you are not competitive as a candidate. What does that mean? It means more undergrads in research, so we need more faculty support for undergraduate research experiences. That means freeing up faculty time with services like graders, research offices, legal offices, tutoring support, student services, and all the administrators that go with that. But it frees up faculty time to work 1:1 with students, which, was the goal.
However if you look at that from the outside, you see "administrative bloat". Take all that away without understanding the why, and you end up with fewer administrators, but the faculty have to do more work now chasing grant money and grading. If you don't want them to be doing that, we need to figure out as a society how to dole out research grants, but until then, it is what it is.
Secondly though, universities aren't just for students. My argument is in fact they are towns, and they are there for everyone there. Students, faculty, staff, admins, the general public, the cafeteria workers, the IT people, the librarians, police, the children at the campus daycare, program director at the arts center, the sports facility managers... everyone. A university is a livable, walkable, self-contained town where everyone is focused and oriented on the pursuit of higher education. What a great thing to have in our society, which by and large is oriented around the pursuit of profit.
I think the more our society becomes focused on profit, the more universities will be forced to grow their scope. If we want them to dial back, let's invest in our local communities.
Implicit here is that there is or should be some sort of linear or sublinear relationship to admin and the student body. If the number of admin grows faster than the student body, is that strange, and is it bad?
1) is that strange?
It's not clear this is strange. First, Universities are highly modular organizations, so there's a lot of duplicated effort. Let's say it takes 5 faculty, and 3 admin to run a department that services 10 students. We open a new department and double our students, so we have 10 faculty, 6 admin, and 20 students. But now with all those students, we need two Teaching Assistants. Turns out that hiring an admin to manage the teaching assistants frees 2 faculty to do more research, so we hire another admin to do that. Student population stays the same. The students need a health center now because the local health facilities are insufficient, so now we need to open a whole health center and that requires 3 new staff with 2 admins. So admin has grown again with no new students.
You see how this can go? For a place line Yale or Stanford, which offer full hospitals, law schools, giant sport facilities, manages dozens of buildings, hundreds of programs and degrees, food services, safety services, IT services, library services... all of these things require coordination and management, and that can easily balloon without adding a single new student.
2) is that bad?
Now, the argument is usually that the students don't need all these things. Well first of all, the standards are much higher than they were even when I was in school in the 2000s. Back then research at an undergraduate level was optional, these days it's required or you are not competitive as a candidate. What does that mean? It means more undergrads in research, so we need more faculty support for undergraduate research experiences. That means freeing up faculty time with services like graders, research offices, legal offices, tutoring support, student services, and all the administrators that go with that. But it frees up faculty time to work 1:1 with students, which, was the goal.
However if you look at that from the outside, you see "administrative bloat". Take all that away without understanding the why, and you end up with fewer administrators, but the faculty have to do more work now chasing grant money and grading. If you don't want them to be doing that, we need to figure out as a society how to dole out research grants, but until then, it is what it is.
Secondly though, universities aren't just for students. My argument is in fact they are towns, and they are there for everyone there. Students, faculty, staff, admins, the general public, the cafeteria workers, the IT people, the librarians, police, the children at the campus daycare, program director at the arts center, the sports facility managers... everyone. A university is a livable, walkable, self-contained town where everyone is focused and oriented on the pursuit of higher education. What a great thing to have in our society, which by and large is oriented around the pursuit of profit.
I think the more our society becomes focused on profit, the more universities will be forced to grow their scope. If we want them to dial back, let's invest in our local communities.
[deleted]
> pure skill/ability/talent
First, find a way to accurately, fairly, and unambiguously define and measure those qualities.
First, find a way to accurately, fairly, and unambiguously define and measure those qualities.
> hired and based admissions on pure skill/ability/talent
This would be great, but I will present without comment the fact that lots of large universities are suddenly getting rid of standardized-test-based admissions, which is by far the best way that we know how to do ability-based admissions.
You must understand the dynamics behind that decision to understand why it isn't currently legally/institutionally feasible to have merit-based admission.
This would be great, but I will present without comment the fact that lots of large universities are suddenly getting rid of standardized-test-based admissions, which is by far the best way that we know how to do ability-based admissions.
You must understand the dynamics behind that decision to understand why it isn't currently legally/institutionally feasible to have merit-based admission.
> You must understand the dynamics behind that decision to understand why it isn't currently legally/institutionally feasible to have merit-based admission.
Is this for any institution of higher learning? Or just public institutions (ie, institutions that receive public/federal money)?
Is this for any institution of higher learning? Or just public institutions (ie, institutions that receive public/federal money)?
Are you suggesting that making the job less secure will make academics less interested in money, grands, trends, citations, and status? They'll be more content to just focus on the science and ignore money and fame, knowing that they can't get tenure and can be fired at any time?
More generally we need better protections for faculty with controversial views who can still teach and research to not get “cancelled”; better labor protections and more jobs so that faculty can advocate for themselves and receive less work (vs. getting disciplined or fired) when they are too old to effectively teach and research; better grants and more jobs so that faculty have better pay; better grants and more jobs so that faculty can only research (these types of faculty suck at teaching), or only teach and not be considered “lesser”; etc. With all these tenure isn’t necessary.
But this is Texas, with US labor protection and a culture which openly hates education and dissent, so in this specific case it’s definitively bad.
But this is Texas, with US labor protection and a culture which openly hates education and dissent, so in this specific case it’s definitively bad.
> faculty can advocate for themselves and receive less work (vs. getting disciplined or fired) when they are too old to effectively teach and research
Why is this desirable (to anyone other than elderly faculty)?
Why is this desirable (to anyone other than elderly faculty)?
One of the promises for highly educated people (PhDs) who devote their most lucrative years to unprofitable research, is that they will able to do the job when they are very old. Otherwise, the retirement plan is insufficient. I can make several times what I do on the market, so if I'm going to be replaced as soon as it's convenient for the university, then we're going to have a very different relationship that's more about money.
I definitely agree. The state __shouldn't__ under any circumstances have the power to police the content taught at universities. What sort of bastion of knowledge and free speech can universities be if they live in fear of getting angering a governor?
>”a culture which openly hates education and dissent, so in this specific case it’s definitively bad.”
This is a completely untrue and biased stereotype. No one in Texas “openly hates education”.
As for the dissent aspect, I don’t even know where to begin with that one.
This is a completely untrue and biased stereotype. No one in Texas “openly hates education”.
As for the dissent aspect, I don’t even know where to begin with that one.
Are you aware that most non tenured positions require you to reapply every year for your job? Every 3 years if you are lucky. This in not a simple annual review like a normal job, this is you are fired at the end of your 1 year contract and now let's talk about the possibility of a new one year contract.
This in my opinion is really what tenure is about, getting out of the yearly firing that adjuncts and lecturers face.
This in my opinion is really what tenure is about, getting out of the yearly firing that adjuncts and lecturers face.
Typical contracts are 3-5 years, which is more job security than you'll find at most any job, which are at-will in America (meaning you can be fired at any time for any reason). With the layoffs in the tech sector now in the 100's of thousands, it's nice to know I have a guaranteed position for the next 2 years.
Perhaps at your institution, but where I consult it is much harder to fire an "at will" administrator than it is to fire an adjunct.
Even one who took a month of unannounced vacation out of the country then retroactively declared it as work from home when it turned out they had not even accrued the time they took. They were also only approved for one day a week work from home.
My point being at least where I work it is next to impossible to fire a full time staffer who is not attached to soft money. An adjunct though is essentially disposable once a year. Part time professors, at the end of any semester.
Even one who took a month of unannounced vacation out of the country then retroactively declared it as work from home when it turned out they had not even accrued the time they took. They were also only approved for one day a week work from home.
My point being at least where I work it is next to impossible to fire a full time staffer who is not attached to soft money. An adjunct though is essentially disposable once a year. Part time professors, at the end of any semester.
> Where I consult it is much harder to fire an "at will" administrator than it is to fire an adjunct.
Of course, this makes perfect sense, due to the role adjuncts fill in the campus community. They are and always have been temporary labor that are used to fill small or short-term roles. For example, they may serve as a project manager on a capstone, a lecturer for a section, or a leader for a recitation. They are not full time faculty and are not expected to fill the role of a full time faculty member. At best they will work for maybe 14 weeks, maybe 6-8 hours a week for one course.
Why shouldn't an adjunct be harder to fire than an administrator, who has a full-time, 40 hour per week, year-round role at the university?
The problem you are alluding to is when a university builds a faculty out of adjuncts, which is just bad practice, and indicative of a bad university.
Of course, this makes perfect sense, due to the role adjuncts fill in the campus community. They are and always have been temporary labor that are used to fill small or short-term roles. For example, they may serve as a project manager on a capstone, a lecturer for a section, or a leader for a recitation. They are not full time faculty and are not expected to fill the role of a full time faculty member. At best they will work for maybe 14 weeks, maybe 6-8 hours a week for one course.
Why shouldn't an adjunct be harder to fire than an administrator, who has a full-time, 40 hour per week, year-round role at the university?
The problem you are alluding to is when a university builds a faculty out of adjuncts, which is just bad practice, and indicative of a bad university.
Even assuming you’re right, that’s only true until the next step the Texas legislature takes, because any benefit will be contrary to their goals, which is to hurt higher education.
Eliminating tenure only increases the pressure to chase grants.
Tenure is what affords academics the time to pursue research that pays off in 10 years instead of 2.
Tenure is what affords academics the time to pursue research that pays off in 10 years instead of 2.
> Today, most academics chase money, grants, trends, citations and status.
Grants, trends, citations, and status...but money really? I come from mathematics and the notion of getting rich in academia is laughable. Maybe that's why so many math and physics people go to finance.
Grants, trends, citations, and status...but money really? I come from mathematics and the notion of getting rich in academia is laughable. Maybe that's why so many math and physics people go to finance.
What's somewhat interesting is that this is a move being made by people who simultaneously claim to want more freedom of expression in general.
It's obvious to see how there could be non-Republican-friendly results of faculty being easier to fire for, say, a controversial twitter post.
So what's the thinking here? Seems like it could be...
* pure political theater, without really focusing on long-term affects
* the result of deciding to not even fight a battle for control of administration for public universities in the state (except in that case... if you think the administrators won't share your views, making it easier for them to fire professors seems foolish)
* similar to the above, but maybe a more outright battle on public education in general; possibly the first of many moves in the hope that right-wing private universities will emerge as replacements?)
It's obvious to see how there could be non-Republican-friendly results of faculty being easier to fire for, say, a controversial twitter post.
So what's the thinking here? Seems like it could be...
* pure political theater, without really focusing on long-term affects
* the result of deciding to not even fight a battle for control of administration for public universities in the state (except in that case... if you think the administrators won't share your views, making it easier for them to fire professors seems foolish)
* similar to the above, but maybe a more outright battle on public education in general; possibly the first of many moves in the hope that right-wing private universities will emerge as replacements?)
It's all three, but did want to point out that your claim that
> It's obvious to see how there could be non-Republican-friendly results of faculty being easier to fire for, say, a controversial twitter post.
contains within it the idea that not being fired for a controversial twitter post or even free speech generally are either concepts that help Republicans or concepts that Republicans believe in, neither of which are true. Not for present day Republicans, historical Republicans, idealized conservatives or any shade of right wing thought except for a tiny insignificant rump of libertarians.
> It's obvious to see how there could be non-Republican-friendly results of faculty being easier to fire for, say, a controversial twitter post.
contains within it the idea that not being fired for a controversial twitter post or even free speech generally are either concepts that help Republicans or concepts that Republicans believe in, neither of which are true. Not for present day Republicans, historical Republicans, idealized conservatives or any shade of right wing thought except for a tiny insignificant rump of libertarians.
I think nearly everyone who says "I want more freedom of expression" leaves out the quiet part, which is "...for people who think like I do."
There are many, many examples of supposed "free speech advocates" trying to silence dissenting voices or criticism.
Under that assumption, it makes perfect sense that Texas conservatives, believing colleges are liberal bastions that spread ideas they disagree with, would see anything that reduces the power of college faculty as a win.
There are many, many examples of supposed "free speech advocates" trying to silence dissenting voices or criticism.
Under that assumption, it makes perfect sense that Texas conservatives, believing colleges are liberal bastions that spread ideas they disagree with, would see anything that reduces the power of college faculty as a win.
I don't disagree, but it's still a bit puzzling beyond the just "political theater"/"retributional politics" approach:
* if they don't control the administration of the schools, this only serves to make it harder to hire anybody and easier to fire those who the administration doesn't agree with. Presumably conservatives. That's a net loss.
* if they do control the administration (or have a path to getting that control) then why not just hire people who think like they do and then enjoy the results of having those folks have tenure?
* if they don't control the administration of the schools, this only serves to make it harder to hire anybody and easier to fire those who the administration doesn't agree with. Presumably conservatives. That's a net loss.
* if they do control the administration (or have a path to getting that control) then why not just hire people who think like they do and then enjoy the results of having those folks have tenure?
Yeah tenure probably protects conservative faculty more than liberal faculty at most institutions.
> * if they don't control the administration of the schools,
They control the purse strings.
They control the purse strings.
Sure, but if that's very leveragable control, isn't "hire conservative faculty members who are protected from future changes in the political winds by tenure" better than "make all faculty easier to fire"?
No, it's not.
You have vastly more power in society by being able to remove your political enemies, than by being able to appoint your friends.
There's a lot of ways in which the latter can screw up - your friends might turn out to be less pliable than you wanted, someone might have been appointed who turned out to be a trojan horse, someone might have been appointed who was palatable to your goals a decade ago, but is now causing trouble, someone might have been appointed under your opponent's watch, etc, etc.
When you instead hang a sword of Damocles over their collective necks, they have no choice but to toe the party line.
You have vastly more power in society by being able to remove your political enemies, than by being able to appoint your friends.
There's a lot of ways in which the latter can screw up - your friends might turn out to be less pliable than you wanted, someone might have been appointed who turned out to be a trojan horse, someone might have been appointed who was palatable to your goals a decade ago, but is now causing trouble, someone might have been appointed under your opponent's watch, etc, etc.
When you instead hang a sword of Damocles over their collective necks, they have no choice but to toe the party line.
"Hold onto power at all costs" is a strategy, sure, but the gotcha here seems to be that they won't be able to remove existing enemies.
It's only new hires who will be affected.
So "hire your political friends" is still important, since they can do some damage before you have a chance to fire them, even given you having additional leverage (and you can imagine a certain kind of academic who could ride that publicity to a lucrative position).
I guess the difference between my thinking here and the Texas GOP's is that I'm saying "make sure your friend are around even when you're not in power anymore" and they're thinking "we will be in power forever."
It's only new hires who will be affected.
So "hire your political friends" is still important, since they can do some damage before you have a chance to fire them, even given you having additional leverage (and you can imagine a certain kind of academic who could ride that publicity to a lucrative position).
I guess the difference between my thinking here and the Texas GOP's is that I'm saying "make sure your friend are around even when you're not in power anymore" and they're thinking "we will be in power forever."
I don’t think “nearly everyone” is a correct assessment. The current conservative coalition includes a lot of Gen X and Millennials. In 2022, the D advantage among voters 30-44 in 2022 was down to 4 points: https://i0.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/.... These are folks who grew up in the 1990s in a much more permissive free speech culture. These are not necessarily the same folks as the ones in the Texas Senate.
Most of the types of speech the current conservative movement dislikes did not have a lot of people prominently voicing that speech in the 90s. They did have a lot of speech against them in the 90s.
It's easy to spot that backlash complaint - "I used to be able to say this in the 90s" - but from what I'm seeing, it's a mistake to think the motivation is "more speech for everyone" and not "this should still be allowed, but that needs to go back in the closet."
It's easy to spot that backlash complaint - "I used to be able to say this in the 90s" - but from what I'm seeing, it's a mistake to think the motivation is "more speech for everyone" and not "this should still be allowed, but that needs to go back in the closet."
I don’t think that’s correct. Many of today’s “barstool conservatives” were 18-29 year olds who voted for Obama. It wasn’t taboo in those groups to say “gay marriage is fine.” I don’t they want that to go back in the closet. They’re upset because the culture shifted and they can’t freely respond to new assertions.
In a way it’s like tattoos. Trump rallies are chock full of them somehow. These folks aren’t clinging to their parents taboos, their reasons for being conservative are different.
(Of course that’s true of liberals too. A lot of the “follow the social norms and watch what you say” people migrated to the Democratic Party over the last couple of decades. This is especially apparent in affluent, highly educated suburbs where there has been major changes in voting patterns without necessarily significant changes in culture.)
In a way it’s like tattoos. Trump rallies are chock full of them somehow. These folks aren’t clinging to their parents taboos, their reasons for being conservative are different.
(Of course that’s true of liberals too. A lot of the “follow the social norms and watch what you say” people migrated to the Democratic Party over the last couple of decades. This is especially apparent in affluent, highly educated suburbs where there has been major changes in voting patterns without necessarily significant changes in culture.)
>Tenure was meant to protect the academic freedom, and pursuit of the long-term scientific research. Today, most academics chase money, grants, trends, citations and status.
These two statements are written as if there's an implication; there isn't one.
>It’s a job like any other, and doesn’t need protection, at cost to those outside the ivory tower (unless perhaps for a very small subset).
Bold claim! Let's see if it's more than just, like, your opinion.
(Again, it isn't).
These two statements are written as if there's an implication; there isn't one.
>It’s a job like any other, and doesn’t need protection, at cost to those outside the ivory tower (unless perhaps for a very small subset).
Bold claim! Let's see if it's more than just, like, your opinion.
(Again, it isn't).
Tenure effectively migrated to administration which being even further from the students makes it less "school" more value extraction corporation.
But removing tenure will only increase the incentives of chasing those things.
And I don't understand how others in this thread are saying academic freedom isn't necessary anymore/doesn't matter. The entire purpose of the republican party attacking tenure is so they can explicitly attack academic freedom.
And I don't understand how others in this thread are saying academic freedom isn't necessary anymore/doesn't matter. The entire purpose of the republican party attacking tenure is so they can explicitly attack academic freedom.
Doesn't matter really, what it does is make Texas public schools second rate. They will fail to attract top qualified candidates, and that's all there is to it. They are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
On the other hand costs may rise because you may not be able to attract good professors if there isn't tenure to offset lower than industry wages. Or you may just get lots of turnover or low-quality professors.
It also only applies to public universities - private institutions can still do whatever they want.
What is academic freedom in 2023?
So the Texas Senate just passed a bill that makes it more likely that Texas faculty hires will be from a smaller and no doubt lower quality pool of candidates?
Why take a job without the possibility of tenure vs anywhere else in the US that has the option available to you?
Why take a job without the possibility of tenure vs anywhere else in the US that has the option available to you?
Getting rid of tenure is fine but they'll need to pay much more to stay competitive.
The calculous is fairly simple. Tenure track and then have an easy work life but less money, or go to industry and make lots of money but work more. Nothing wrong with either but if you get rid of the upsides to academia expect to replace them with something. That's just how market economies work.
The issue isn't stem so much as the stuff where there isn't a highly paying industry sector. Those PhDs will have to go out of state for the same QOL as there will be no other competition to increase pay.
The calculous is fairly simple. Tenure track and then have an easy work life but less money, or go to industry and make lots of money but work more. Nothing wrong with either but if you get rid of the upsides to academia expect to replace them with something. That's just how market economies work.
The issue isn't stem so much as the stuff where there isn't a highly paying industry sector. Those PhDs will have to go out of state for the same QOL as there will be no other competition to increase pay.
> Tenure track and then have an easy work life
That doesn't match the experience of anyone I know in academia , when you want an easy work life you quit and move to the private sector
That doesn't match the experience of anyone I know in academia , when you want an easy work life you quit and move to the private sector
This.
A friend remarked one benefit of moving to industry (aside higher pay and more job security(1)) was the reduced hours - no longer always continuing to work after leaving the office.
(1) job security after tenure isn't magical compared to industry around here; before tenure, job security is more or less a guaranteed "haha nope."
So on average, industry has far better job security.
A friend remarked one benefit of moving to industry (aside higher pay and more job security(1)) was the reduced hours - no longer always continuing to work after leaving the office.
(1) job security after tenure isn't magical compared to industry around here; before tenure, job security is more or less a guaranteed "haha nope."
So on average, industry has far better job security.
I find the likelihood of paying professors appropriately to be very unlikely; it's not like non-tenure-track professorships are making bank.
I mean, it's not apples to apples, but I do part-time adjunct stuff in NYC, and the extra income is nice enough but even if I extrapolated it to full time, I'd barely have enough to pay my mortgage.
I mean, it's not apples to apples, but I do part-time adjunct stuff in NYC, and the extra income is nice enough but even if I extrapolated it to full time, I'd barely have enough to pay my mortgage.
Adjuncts get treated like dirt everywhere, afaik
I mean, they treat me fine I think; everyone has been polite to me, I'm just a lecturer.
It just doesn't pay well enough to survive. I mostly enjoy teaching, but honestly I don't think that I will be doing it again next semester.
It's tough to say if I'm a "good" lecturer obviously, especially I think it's borderline impossible to fail a teaching evaluation here, but I do know that it's trivial for me to find work that pays more than twice as much in the private sector, without a ton of extra work.
It just doesn't pay well enough to survive. I mostly enjoy teaching, but honestly I don't think that I will be doing it again next semester.
It's tough to say if I'm a "good" lecturer obviously, especially I think it's borderline impossible to fail a teaching evaluation here, but I do know that it's trivial for me to find work that pays more than twice as much in the private sector, without a ton of extra work.
I think @kevinmchugh meant that the adjuncts are exploited everywhere.
The adjuncts in my department are all there willingly and they seem pretty happy if you listen to them tell it.
They are all retired engineers and project managers from a local technology firm. They got bored with retirement and like to come around and supervise projects in the capstone. We pay them a couple grand a semester for it, it's not a lot of work. They like it, our students like it, the faculty like it. Everyone wins, what's the problem? How are they being "exploited"?
They are all retired engineers and project managers from a local technology firm. They got bored with retirement and like to come around and supervise projects in the capstone. We pay them a couple grand a semester for it, it's not a lot of work. They like it, our students like it, the faculty like it. Everyone wins, what's the problem? How are they being "exploited"?
Yeah, I largely agree; I’m not retired (only in my 30s), but I think for the part time work that I am doing (6 teaching hours a week), I am actually paid reasonably enough. It does bother me that full time professors (tenured or not) are getting paid less than half of what they could easily get in industry though.
I made more two years into my industry job than any of the tenured professors at my Tier 2 mathematics department (comparable to A&M).
There’s no way Texas state govt can stomach paying competitive salaries for non-tenured professors. They can’t even stomach investing in critical infrastructure.
There’s no way Texas state govt can stomach paying competitive salaries for non-tenured professors. They can’t even stomach investing in critical infrastructure.
>The calculous[sic] is fairly simple. Tenure track and then have an easy work life but less money, or go to industry and make lots of money but work more.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
Going from academia into industry, the work is much less stressful, and the pay is much higher.
"Easy work life" and being a research professor are mutually exclusive. Your work never ends.
>The issue isn't stem so much as the stuff where there isn't a highly paying industry sector. Those PhDs will have to go out of state f
Again, you have no idea how this market works. The absolute, vast majority of PhD holders and grad students come out of state to begin with.
They will simply avoid Texas, which is simpler than going out of state.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
Going from academia into industry, the work is much less stressful, and the pay is much higher.
"Easy work life" and being a research professor are mutually exclusive. Your work never ends.
>The issue isn't stem so much as the stuff where there isn't a highly paying industry sector. Those PhDs will have to go out of state f
Again, you have no idea how this market works. The absolute, vast majority of PhD holders and grad students come out of state to begin with.
They will simply avoid Texas, which is simpler than going out of state.
> Tenure track and then have an easy work life
Most faculty works much longer hours than the private sector. It's not easy by any means.
People become professors for exactly the same reason why some people become doctors and others real estate agents - they enjoy it or their personality matches the profession.
Money is not everything.
Most faculty works much longer hours than the private sector. It's not easy by any means.
People become professors for exactly the same reason why some people become doctors and others real estate agents - they enjoy it or their personality matches the profession.
Money is not everything.
One of my colleagues, Randy Pausch, used to quip that "academia is the best. You can work any 70 hours per week you want!"
There's truth in that, for better or worse.
There's truth in that, for better or worse.
Not college, but my wife is wrapping up her teaching certification soon. We have both considered moving to Florida (we both have family that live there), but there is no chance in hell that we are moving to Florida and teaching; the infamous "Don't Say Gay" bill is so broad and idiotic (and she would be teaching biology), that Florida is a complete non-starter for us since neither of us really have any desire to be sued because some parent feels she might be teaching some "woke" agenda. I have no idea if my wife would be a good teacher, but I do know that if I were a teacher and I had options to teach elsewhere, I would not teach in Florida.
Similarly, professors are kind of absurdly underpaid, at least in STEM. Generally if you're qualified to be a professor in STEM, you're qualified for a nice yuppie job paying twice as much; one of the very few appealing things that professorships have is tenure.
Similarly, professors are kind of absurdly underpaid, at least in STEM. Generally if you're qualified to be a professor in STEM, you're qualified for a nice yuppie job paying twice as much; one of the very few appealing things that professorships have is tenure.
I’m not from US but I’m curious what is the situation in other states? Are there situations like that occurring elsewhere (even if the bias is in the opposite political direction e.g. in California or somewhere) or is Florida a “lonely island” here with regard to free speech limitations on universities?
1. Imho, Florida is just leading the way for other states (many of which are actually more conservative than Florida). One reason Florida might be taking the lead is because the current governor is making a run for president in 2024, and this is establishing his bona fides. Florida is definitely not a “lonely island”.
2. Liberal states seem to be going extreme in other directions. Some examples are how “equity” policies (in general, not a bad idea) are implemented. Gifted programs, ap programs, accelerated programs and the like are being cut because the participants don’t have the proper racial ratios (Asians and Whites tend to be statistically over-represented). Equity is not an unreasonable policy to pursue, but doing it by holding back others is regressive, imho. Holding back high achievers also addresses the problem at the wrong level — that is, the origins of academic inequality typically happen at a much earlier age.
Interestingly, in most states (blue, red, or purple), teachers are almost forced to teach to the bottom 25-30% of each class, since schools are evaluated by how many people meet the minimum standards rather than by overall or high level achievement.
2. Liberal states seem to be going extreme in other directions. Some examples are how “equity” policies (in general, not a bad idea) are implemented. Gifted programs, ap programs, accelerated programs and the like are being cut because the participants don’t have the proper racial ratios (Asians and Whites tend to be statistically over-represented). Equity is not an unreasonable policy to pursue, but doing it by holding back others is regressive, imho. Holding back high achievers also addresses the problem at the wrong level — that is, the origins of academic inequality typically happen at a much earlier age.
Interestingly, in most states (blue, red, or purple), teachers are almost forced to teach to the bottom 25-30% of each class, since schools are evaluated by how many people meet the minimum standards rather than by overall or high level achievement.
It’s getting pretty common in conservative states. Just this year there were (in various states) hundreds of laws passed against public expressions of LGBTQ+ identities, including some that affect public sector employees (e.g., state university professors).
Can you help me understand what aspect of teaching biology in grades k through 3 would be against the provisions of the law in Florida? I studied biology to age 16 in England (“o-levels”) and don’t recall anything even up to that age that would be covered under this law?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Parental_Rights_in_E...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Parental_Rights_in_E...
Because it's not just grades K through 3 anymore [1].
The law is pretty broad and moreover the legal costs default to the defendant. Even if my wife didn't do something that was officially illegal, we'd be stuck counter-suing to reclaim legal costs.
[1] https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-education-board-ap...
The law is pretty broad and moreover the legal costs default to the defendant. Even if my wife didn't do something that was officially illegal, we'd be stuck counter-suing to reclaim legal costs.
[1] https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-education-board-ap...
Thanks for the info - but this implies that following the state curriculum would be a pretty easy defence, wouldn't it? So if a teacher wanted to teach about "sexual orientation and gender identity", even outside of the "existing state standards", they could still do so as part of "reproductive health instruction that students can choose not to take" [1] [2].
The closest reference I can find for the legal stuff is here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/...
Everything in that text talks about the parent taking legal action against the school district, not the teacher [3] - same as when citizens sue "the cops", they are usually suing the city that runs that police department, not the individual police officer. So if a teacher is following the rules laid down by their employer (which one assumes would be in accordance with state law), they would presumably be provided counsel by their employer in order to ensure that the employer can actually mount a legal defense? So it sounds no different to being a state employee in a lot of places. Or am I still missing something?
[1] "The rule change would ban lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity through 12th grade unless required by existing state standards or as part of reproductive health instruction that students can choose not to take"
[2] "Educators have said they don’t expect a major change in lesson plans given that teachers adhere to state education curriculums"
[3] "If a concern is not resolved by the school district, a 129 parent may: ... (I) [elided] (II) Bring an action against the school district to obtain a declaratory judgment that the school district procedure or practice violates this paragraph and seek injunctive relief. A court may award damages and shall award reasonable attorney fees and court costs to a parent who receives declaratory or injunctive relief. "
The closest reference I can find for the legal stuff is here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/...
Everything in that text talks about the parent taking legal action against the school district, not the teacher [3] - same as when citizens sue "the cops", they are usually suing the city that runs that police department, not the individual police officer. So if a teacher is following the rules laid down by their employer (which one assumes would be in accordance with state law), they would presumably be provided counsel by their employer in order to ensure that the employer can actually mount a legal defense? So it sounds no different to being a state employee in a lot of places. Or am I still missing something?
[1] "The rule change would ban lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity through 12th grade unless required by existing state standards or as part of reproductive health instruction that students can choose not to take"
[2] "Educators have said they don’t expect a major change in lesson plans given that teachers adhere to state education curriculums"
[3] "If a concern is not resolved by the school district, a 129 parent may: ... (I) [elided] (II) Bring an action against the school district to obtain a declaratory judgment that the school district procedure or practice violates this paragraph and seek injunctive relief. A court may award damages and shall award reasonable attorney fees and court costs to a parent who receives declaratory or injunctive relief. "
Sure, but when there’s zero repercussions to a frivolous lawsuit, there’s likely to be a frivolous lawsuit. If a parent can easily lie and try and extort money, it can still be an awful, expensive, exhausting process for my wife. Even if it doesn’t cost us any money directly (which to be completely honest I don’t buy), there’s still the exhausting and awful process of having to defend herself in court.
Edit:
I would also like to point out that even if you were right on the technicalities, you understand why this would be an immensely unappealing thing for a prospective teacher. It would be much easier to simply move to a state that doesn’t have a vague, poorly defined, conspiratorial law that is likely to make our lives unpleasant.
Edit:
I would also like to point out that even if you were right on the technicalities, you understand why this would be an immensely unappealing thing for a prospective teacher. It would be much easier to simply move to a state that doesn’t have a vague, poorly defined, conspiratorial law that is likely to make our lives unpleasant.
> you understand why this would be an immensely unappealing thing for a prospective teacher
Does how it is experienced depend on which “tribe” the teacher is more aligned with? I imagine a teacher who feels closer to the “blue tribe” is going to experience this as an attack on them and their profession, while a “red tribe” teacher is more likely to feel that the target is someone other than them, and may even agree with the law (or at least the intention behind it).
I know US teachers (and public school especially) tend to skew more “blue” than “red”, but I think the latter group are likely a larger percentage of them than many would think, especially in “red states”.
Does how it is experienced depend on which “tribe” the teacher is more aligned with? I imagine a teacher who feels closer to the “blue tribe” is going to experience this as an attack on them and their profession, while a “red tribe” teacher is more likely to feel that the target is someone other than them, and may even agree with the law (or at least the intention behind it).
I know US teachers (and public school especially) tend to skew more “blue” than “red”, but I think the latter group are likely a larger percentage of them than many would think, especially in “red states”.
The thing that concerns me is that there’s very little consequence for outright lying. Even if we did buy into the groomer conspiracies and play everything exactly how Ron Desantis wanted, that won’t necessarily stop an unscrupulous parent from just outright lying and making our lives difficult.
I don’t think a majority of parents would do that (conservative or otherwise), but all it really takes is one to make our lives frustrating.
I don’t think a majority of parents would do that (conservative or otherwise), but all it really takes is one to make our lives frustrating.
When the anti-woke mobs come for teachers, they won’t care about their political affiliations. Leopards eat all faces.
that makes sense - in my line of work, lawsuits are an occupational hazard, I imagine it should not be the case for teachers! But I also think both that it’s easy to overstate the risk of some of these things and it would completely suck to be on the receiving end
It’ll be interesting to see if the pay rate generally goes up for teachers in florida if they end up with many other teachers making that same decision
It’ll be interesting to see if the pay rate generally goes up for teachers in florida if they end up with many other teachers making that same decision
> they could still do so as part of "reproductive health instruction that students can choose not to take"
Wait, so it’s okay to teach about sexuality in the class where it’s most likely to be a relevant topic of discussion?
Wait, so it’s okay to teach about sexuality in the class where it’s most likely to be a relevant topic of discussion?
a lot of the fear is not so much not what the law says, but how a local school administration or local judge decides to interpret it after arbitrary complaints by parents. even if you’re eventually ruled to comply with the law it could make your life pretty miserable.
It's K-12 now. But, of course, when they started going down that road, we were all assured, on this very forum, that it's not going to get to this point.
you should definitely move to a state that suits your political background, its fair to say you might not like florida. but that "don't say gay bill" is really just a "don't teach sex ed til 4th grade" bill. i'm understanding of people who don't like it nonetheless but there's other place for you to go, there's plenty of blue states and big cities that support left-wing agendas over right-wing ones, just go there instead, no?
It's not just through 3rd grade anymore. It's all the way through the end of high school.
https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-education-board-ap...
https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-education-board-ap...
I think this is a pretty stupid argument; I think this is an idiotic law, and I would even if I did agree with the bizarre LGBT grooming conspiracies.
It’s poorly worded, likely to be abused, and also not just K-3 anymore like people keep incorrectly asserting. Even if I did think that there was some grooming conspiracy, I wouldn’t want to teach in Florida because I don’t want to be sued by some parent who has a relatively risk-free way to get free money by claiming I mentioned some LGBT agenda.
Also, you understand that “move to a blue city” only gets you so far right? This will (and to some extent already has) lead to a shortage of decent teachers in Florida, because a lot of teachers who can move to a more hospitable state have (or will).
It’s poorly worded, likely to be abused, and also not just K-3 anymore like people keep incorrectly asserting. Even if I did think that there was some grooming conspiracy, I wouldn’t want to teach in Florida because I don’t want to be sued by some parent who has a relatively risk-free way to get free money by claiming I mentioned some LGBT agenda.
Also, you understand that “move to a blue city” only gets you so far right? This will (and to some extent already has) lead to a shortage of decent teachers in Florida, because a lot of teachers who can move to a more hospitable state have (or will).
that's not exactly steel manning what i said, a lot of the modern lgbt craze is crossing religious boundaries, i don't want my kids to be taught anyone else's religion, i'm supposed to have this right granted to me and my kids under law
people who like what's going on in florida will move to florida, its a win-win
people who like what's going on in florida will move to florida, its a win-win
It's actually not a win-win, because even if I agreed with your beliefs about the "lgbt craze", I wouldn't move to Florida. The law is so vaguely worded, and the plaintiffs in these lawsuits have virtually zero consequence for lying.
Most parents are probably fine (liberal or conservative), but it only takes one dishonest parent to make a teacher's life very unpleasant. I suspect a lot of teachers see the writing on the wall and are getting the hell out of Florida.
Most parents are probably fine (liberal or conservative), but it only takes one dishonest parent to make a teacher's life very unpleasant. I suspect a lot of teachers see the writing on the wall and are getting the hell out of Florida.
the same can be said about a lot of communities and it has more to do with crime and violence than about gender opinions, there's tons of people who get off with lying everywhere, i think you're fooling yourself into believing florida is somehow special. there's probably been more florida on your feed lately in order to get people to be anti-desantis, it a real thing
Those communities don’t have a special law tailor-made to make it is easier and risk-free to sue.
If you don't plan on staying in academia forever, tenure vs no tenure shouldn't really matter.
Tenure matters if you happen to be teaching American history and have a bunch of people who want you fired because you had the temerity to talk about slavery.
Tenure matters if you happen to be teaching English literature and have a bunch of people who want you fired because you have the temerity to point out that Chaucer's characters have the symptoms of syphilis.
Tenure matters if you happen to be teaching biology and have a bunch of people who want you fired because you had the temerity to teach about DNA and evolution.
Shall I continue?
Yes, there is enough oversupply of PhDs that Texas will still fill the roles. They'll just have to fill them over and over as people will leave the first chance they get.
Tenure matters if you happen to be teaching English literature and have a bunch of people who want you fired because you have the temerity to point out that Chaucer's characters have the symptoms of syphilis.
Tenure matters if you happen to be teaching biology and have a bunch of people who want you fired because you had the temerity to teach about DNA and evolution.
Shall I continue?
Yes, there is enough oversupply of PhDs that Texas will still fill the roles. They'll just have to fill them over and over as people will leave the first chance they get.
I'm tired of responding to folks caught up on the wrong shit, so here's what I should have said in the first place:
In my personal experience I've seen or heard of more professors espousing their personal views as fact than most online and academic discourse would have otherwise led me to believe possible.
I think removing tenure is a net loss for research because professors now have to worry about politically motivated reprisal for their research, whereas I believe it to be a net gain for student education since professors can then be held accountable for failing their basic responsibility of teaching factual information to the best of their knowledge based on the available research in their field of study.
In my personal experience I've seen or heard of more professors espousing their personal views as fact than most online and academic discourse would have otherwise led me to believe possible.
I think removing tenure is a net loss for research because professors now have to worry about politically motivated reprisal for their research, whereas I believe it to be a net gain for student education since professors can then be held accountable for failing their basic responsibility of teaching factual information to the best of their knowledge based on the available research in their field of study.
> actively retaliate against students who try to stand up for their faith.
Outside of chain emails and the movie "God's Not Dead", has this really happened? Anecdata, but when I took an intro to philosophy course my professor was pretty open to religious people talking about their justification for stuff. For that matter, I took a "religious ethics" class, which spent a not-insignificant time talking about Christian ethics (in addition to a lot of other popular religions). It was actually a pretty interesting class.
This was at a public school, evidently.
Outside of chain emails and the movie "God's Not Dead", has this really happened? Anecdata, but when I took an intro to philosophy course my professor was pretty open to religious people talking about their justification for stuff. For that matter, I took a "religious ethics" class, which spent a not-insignificant time talking about Christian ethics (in addition to a lot of other popular religions). It was actually a pretty interesting class.
This was at a public school, evidently.
>Outside of chain emails and the movie "God's Not Dead", has this really happened?
As often as the OPs scenarios have happened, which you were strangely quiet on questioning the validity of. Just an oversight, I'm sure.
As often as the OPs scenarios have happened, which you were strangely quiet on questioning the validity of. Just an oversight, I'm sure.
Ok, so are you saying that “never” is the answer to both?
Yes
You would be wrong.
I chose those scenarios specifically because I know the teachers and professors who had gadflies coming after them.
My own father used to have to deal with things as a high school English and history teacher due to a local Catholic priest. Tiny-ass town, practically all Caucasian population, rural as hell. And even he had to deal with these kinds of idiots. Tenure meant he could effectively tell them to pound sand.
I can't imagine the number of nitwits that college professors have to fend off. I guess we're about to find out.
I chose those scenarios specifically because I know the teachers and professors who had gadflies coming after them.
My own father used to have to deal with things as a high school English and history teacher due to a local Catholic priest. Tiny-ass town, practically all Caucasian population, rural as hell. And even he had to deal with these kinds of idiots. Tenure meant he could effectively tell them to pound sand.
I can't imagine the number of nitwits that college professors have to fend off. I guess we're about to find out.
I teach CS, so I haven’t had any threats or disputes with local churches or anything. However, I have had to deal with angry parents screaming at me because they just don’t understand why their kid is failing. One of them even pulled up my LinkedIn and tried to tattle on me to the chairperson [1].
If I’m getting complaints like that from parents in a pretty un-controversial thing like programming, I suspect people teaching evolution or history have it way worse.
[1] They seemed to think it was some smoking gun that I had another job, in addition to teaching, and thought that the chairperson should be informed. The chairperson called me into their office and asked what it was about, I showed them the previous email correspondence, and they laughed, since I had already been pretty straightforward about my current work.
If I’m getting complaints like that from parents in a pretty un-controversial thing like programming, I suspect people teaching evolution or history have it way worse.
[1] They seemed to think it was some smoking gun that I had another job, in addition to teaching, and thought that the chairperson should be informed. The chairperson called me into their office and asked what it was about, I showed them the previous email correspondence, and they laughed, since I had already been pretty straightforward about my current work.
[deleted]
>Tenure hurts if you happen to be teaching biology and have a bunch of people who want you fired because you teach politically motivated Critical Race theory.
Considering that CRT is a legal and historical theory, not a biology theory, I think that's a fair concern. Similarly, tenured European history professors should be called on the carpet for requiring reading and homework on perturbation theory in quantum electrodynamics.
Your first point is not really coherent. Do you mean to say that some professor should be fired for overemphasizing slavery's role in American history? Or underemphasizing?
An actual example that's come up: tenure hurts if a law professor is critical of a dominant industry in your state, and you want to fire her for saying so in a professional capacity[0].
I can't speak to the impact on STEM, but this will 100% hurt Texas' ability to operate law schools, and it will likely also impact its ability to provide basic general-studies curriculum as is generally considered necessary for a bachelor's degree.
0. https://www.hcn.org/issues/173/5582
Considering that CRT is a legal and historical theory, not a biology theory, I think that's a fair concern. Similarly, tenured European history professors should be called on the carpet for requiring reading and homework on perturbation theory in quantum electrodynamics.
Your first point is not really coherent. Do you mean to say that some professor should be fired for overemphasizing slavery's role in American history? Or underemphasizing?
An actual example that's come up: tenure hurts if a law professor is critical of a dominant industry in your state, and you want to fire her for saying so in a professional capacity[0].
I can't speak to the impact on STEM, but this will 100% hurt Texas' ability to operate law schools, and it will likely also impact its ability to provide basic general-studies curriculum as is generally considered necessary for a bachelor's degree.
0. https://www.hcn.org/issues/173/5582
[deleted]
In the real world of academia, CRT is a legal theory, not a biological one.
[deleted]
The false positive rate for students reporting “my professor is teaching critical race theory!!!” is outlandishly high.
CRT is also not “political pop science propaganda” so I’m not convinced you can recognize it either. It’s a legal theory. About law.
CRT is also not “political pop science propaganda” so I’m not convinced you can recognize it either. It’s a legal theory. About law.
[deleted]
Why bother removing it? You're not under the impression that misrepresenting your brother's anecdote matters.
I'm happy we drilled down and got to what really happened, which as far as I can tell was something along the lines of, "my professor said something about race once and it hurt my feelings." In Florida (and probably in Texas, too, or soon enough I imagine), I think that's a felony now!
I'm happy we drilled down and got to what really happened, which as far as I can tell was something along the lines of, "my professor said something about race once and it hurt my feelings." In Florida (and probably in Texas, too, or soon enough I imagine), I think that's a felony now!
I removed it because I'm tired of responding about the individual anecdotes without anyone actually acknowledging the root argument. I don't want to write a three page essay on how I verify information that affects my general outlook of the world, and then dismiss and forget the details surrounding the verification of information as immaterial to the view I now hold.
I'm not an academic, I'm just a regular guy who happens to have had bad experiences with professors abusing their positions of authority. I don't have sources to cite, and this belief holds such a small peripheral place in my world view that I don't have the level of detail available to deal with this level of... whatever the hell this was.
I'm not an academic, I'm just a regular guy who happens to have had bad experiences with professors abusing their positions of authority. I don't have sources to cite, and this belief holds such a small peripheral place in my world view that I don't have the level of detail available to deal with this level of... whatever the hell this was.
> I don’t care what CRT is academically
Wut? Aren't you explicitly talking about an academic context? Wouldn't that matter a heck of a lot what class your brother was getting taught? Like, hypothetically I can disagree with feminism but I'm just being stupid if I go to a feminism 101 class and get mad the professor is teaching feminist theories.
Wut? Aren't you explicitly talking about an academic context? Wouldn't that matter a heck of a lot what class your brother was getting taught? Like, hypothetically I can disagree with feminism but I'm just being stupid if I go to a feminism 101 class and get mad the professor is teaching feminist theories.
[deleted]
I think using an example of {x} where x is an academic subject matter, and the complaint was that it was used in an academic setting, and is used as an example of a bad behavior involving academic institutions, it's worth inquiring if that example is valid! If I presented a mathematical proof in a math paper in a math journal, my proof being incorrect is kind of a big deal.
The replacement for tenure track faculty is teaching only faculty, which is already happening across the world.
Teaching only faculty have even less incentive and time to stay on top of research progress. 10 years out of their PhD, the teaching only faculty is hopelessly out of touch of the state of the art in any super active field.
Teaching only faculty have even less incentive and time to stay on top of research progress. 10 years out of their PhD, the teaching only faculty is hopelessly out of touch of the state of the art in any super active field.
Wouldn’t the incentive be to stay relevant?
Always, ask what is the economics of things.
Full time teaching faculty teach 3 courses every semester, for it to make financial sense to pay them for full time salaried role. Trying to teach a course well takes at least 12-15 hours of work every week, if not more. That's already more than 40 hours per week. Add a few hours of service requirements to this as well.
Where is the time or the mental energy to learn new stuff? At best they will supervise an undergraduate thesis or two every year, where perhaps the students will teach them some new stuff.
It's only the gifted, who are able to keep up. The average faculty member just falls further and further behind.
Full time teaching faculty teach 3 courses every semester, for it to make financial sense to pay them for full time salaried role. Trying to teach a course well takes at least 12-15 hours of work every week, if not more. That's already more than 40 hours per week. Add a few hours of service requirements to this as well.
Where is the time or the mental energy to learn new stuff? At best they will supervise an undergraduate thesis or two every year, where perhaps the students will teach them some new stuff.
It's only the gifted, who are able to keep up. The average faculty member just falls further and further behind.
As a full time teaching professor with a 3/3-course load, I can say there’s definitely time — the summer, when I’m off from the beginning of May to the end of August; and the winter, when I’m off from the beginning of December to the end of January.
How often do your scenarios occur in real life?
[deleted]
From what I understand the tenure system was already in decline and it was already understood that getting tenure was effectively out of reach for the younger generations of professors.
Creating becomes an issue they can always pay more to compensate for the lack of possible tenure.
> Public-college boards would be able to create “an alternate system of tiered employment status for faculty members” that’s not tenure, the legislation states. But that system would require faculty members to go through an annual performance evaluation.
That sounds closer to how most jobs work.
Honestly, I've never understood the purpose of tenure; it seems like an archaic tradition. If it's to give professors freedom to do research without fear of reprisal, it's not working, at least not optimally: there are plenty of ways to punish tenured researchers.
The professors I know personally have no expectation of ever getting tenure. Imagine that: Ph.D. in your field, work 30 years, never even seriously entertain the possibility of getting the brass ring. Something's broken there.
The best professor I had at university was in his sixties when I took his courses, and he never got tenure despite being really good at his job. The people who get tenure seem to be people who bring a lot of attention or a lot of money to the university. Both of those are only a professor's "job" if you look at universities as cynical money-making machines (a disenchantment I have slowly come around to).
I guess what I'm saying is, I have no problems with Texas throwing a grenade into this situation. I am somewhat skeptical of the likelihood of them replacing it with a better system in practice, though.
Still, some better solution must be found if we expect higher education to continue as an institution into the future. If this bill passes, I wish them good luck, and will be looking at this as an interesting experiment.
That sounds closer to how most jobs work.
Honestly, I've never understood the purpose of tenure; it seems like an archaic tradition. If it's to give professors freedom to do research without fear of reprisal, it's not working, at least not optimally: there are plenty of ways to punish tenured researchers.
The professors I know personally have no expectation of ever getting tenure. Imagine that: Ph.D. in your field, work 30 years, never even seriously entertain the possibility of getting the brass ring. Something's broken there.
The best professor I had at university was in his sixties when I took his courses, and he never got tenure despite being really good at his job. The people who get tenure seem to be people who bring a lot of attention or a lot of money to the university. Both of those are only a professor's "job" if you look at universities as cynical money-making machines (a disenchantment I have slowly come around to).
I guess what I'm saying is, I have no problems with Texas throwing a grenade into this situation. I am somewhat skeptical of the likelihood of them replacing it with a better system in practice, though.
Still, some better solution must be found if we expect higher education to continue as an institution into the future. If this bill passes, I wish them good luck, and will be looking at this as an interesting experiment.
The problem is, as others have said, this severely degrades Texas's desirability as a career destination for academics as long as only Texas is doing this and other states are not.
Put another way, these are the people Texas doesn't want in the state:
- LGBT+ - women - academics
Are they trying to have a student population composed of just cis crypto bros and assorted incels? Because this is how you get there.
Put another way, these are the people Texas doesn't want in the state:
- LGBT+ - women - academics
Are they trying to have a student population composed of just cis crypto bros and assorted incels? Because this is how you get there.
Given that universities already select which professors get tenure, how would removing tenure help or hurt any groups, relative to the present system?
I'd like to be open-minded and optimistic about this, but Texas is a noted enemy of education.
So as a Texan I'm on the fence here.
I wasn't directly involved (as a student and TA), but spent a fair while in academia, and was rather close personal friends with a number of adjunct professors, tenure-track profs, post-docs, and grad students. I was looking at staying in academics so I had many long discussions about the state of things (at least at the time, about a decade ago).
There was a lot of concern in the field about how tenure was an incentive and a solid goal to strive for, but it left much for the administration to abuse. Between the politics and bureaucracy and constant jockeying for tenure track, it made it hard to focus on the students. Since you had to "play the game" or get cut or tossed out, that forced non-tenure profs to spend time outside of teaching. Then you had the shitty profs that just wanted that tenure protection so they could avoid teaching and just do their own personal research. And since it was so easy to cut adjuncts, they had little to no bargaining position and were often given shitty pay. So I'm all for ditching Tenure or otherwise reworking that pile of garbage.
But on the other hand, I don't trust anything coming out of the TX lege right now. Especially if it's got Dan Patrick excited. They're trying their hardest to create an authoritarian theocracy using the same playbook as DeSantis, and this seems like another step in controlling education in Texas to paint the narrative they want.
I wasn't directly involved (as a student and TA), but spent a fair while in academia, and was rather close personal friends with a number of adjunct professors, tenure-track profs, post-docs, and grad students. I was looking at staying in academics so I had many long discussions about the state of things (at least at the time, about a decade ago).
There was a lot of concern in the field about how tenure was an incentive and a solid goal to strive for, but it left much for the administration to abuse. Between the politics and bureaucracy and constant jockeying for tenure track, it made it hard to focus on the students. Since you had to "play the game" or get cut or tossed out, that forced non-tenure profs to spend time outside of teaching. Then you had the shitty profs that just wanted that tenure protection so they could avoid teaching and just do their own personal research. And since it was so easy to cut adjuncts, they had little to no bargaining position and were often given shitty pay. So I'm all for ditching Tenure or otherwise reworking that pile of garbage.
But on the other hand, I don't trust anything coming out of the TX lege right now. Especially if it's got Dan Patrick excited. They're trying their hardest to create an authoritarian theocracy using the same playbook as DeSantis, and this seems like another step in controlling education in Texas to paint the narrative they want.
There's a lot of conversation going on, but I am familiar with a number of the parties pushing this legislation. The entire point is so that the lege can force TX universities to get rid of "undesirable" faculty. Full stop: it's a means to stifle divergent opinions. I'm under the impression that there's already a list.
I also feel like if achieving Tenure then allowed profs to stop "playing the game" and start "focusing on the students"...that getting rid of tenure means no one can ever stop "playing the game" and will never be able to "focus on the students".
Personally I feel there are two different jobs in academia that need to be split up: Teaching students, and doing research. I feel that professors should be able to apple for jobs specifying a 60/40, 50/50, 75/25, 100/0, 0/100 split between those two roles. Don't make people research who just want to teach. And dont force students to suffer professors who don't want to teach them.
Personally I feel there are two different jobs in academia that need to be split up: Teaching students, and doing research. I feel that professors should be able to apple for jobs specifying a 60/40, 50/50, 75/25, 100/0, 0/100 split between those two roles. Don't make people research who just want to teach. And dont force students to suffer professors who don't want to teach them.
These roles already exist. The standard one is 25/75 teaching research split. Then there are teaching faculty who do all teaching, and research faculty who do all research. I’m kind of 50/50 in my role.
Texas has been rapid firing bills and actions that destroy local communities ability to self-govern as well as actions like these to try and spite what they view as the opposition. It's not going to end well for Texas (and is the reason why I left the state in the first place), but none of the ghouls in charge care because they'll be dead and / or get their payday before the problems come to roost. Much like Ken Paxton being a criminal that hasn't been put behind bars yet.
Clarifying a bad headline: it's not that tenure can't be offered (only) to new faculty. It's that henceforth nobody would be given tenure, even if they were already employees. Existing employees who are already tenured would be grandfathered.
And obviously only for public institutions.
And obviously only for public institutions.
That's my understanding too. I was surprised to see the headline because we have a couple of assistant profs in my department going up for tenure next year and I was told that if this law passes they won't be able to do that anymore.
Edit: Looks like it applies only to new hires. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/20/texas-senate-tenure-...
Edit: Looks like it applies only to new hires. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/20/texas-senate-tenure-...
> It's that henceforth nobody would be given tenure, even if they were already employees.
If I’m understanding you correctly, I think this is not true? “The legislation would apply only to faculty members hired by Texas colleges after January 1, 2024. Professors who have tenure, have applied for tenure, or are on the tenure track would not be affected.”
If I’m understanding you correctly, I think this is not true? “The legislation would apply only to faculty members hired by Texas colleges after January 1, 2024. Professors who have tenure, have applied for tenure, or are on the tenure track would not be affected.”
Tenure is to Academia as Venture Capital is to Entreprenureship. You give resources (money, which buys time, office space, equipment, support staff...) to a bunch of promising individuals, hoping that some of them will do amazing things, but knowing most of them will not.
Going to be tough for UT, which regularly hires people who are among the best in the world, and was essentially at the Berkeley/UCLA/UMich level of public university. They will still be able to hire, of course, but they won't be able to get Nobel Prize-level people without offering tenure.
> but they won't be able to get Nobel Prize-level people without offering tenure
I’m fairly certain that most Nobel Prize-level people are not worried about tenure. They will be gainfully employed as long as they want to be.
If they are looking for a delayed retirement, they can just move to a tenured spot when they reach a certain age.
I’m fairly certain that most Nobel Prize-level people are not worried about tenure. They will be gainfully employed as long as they want to be.
If they are looking for a delayed retirement, they can just move to a tenured spot when they reach a certain age.
I'm talking about the people who seem like they could win a Nobel Prize someday when they're just finishing their PhD, not the people who already have one.
how many tenure track positions are hiring these days? I have the impression that they are pretty rare anyway.
It’s not just about tenure though. It’s the fact that the people who have the power to control everything about the public universities in Texas have shown that they will damage them, specifically by targeting faculty.
Even if I’m a non-tenure track faculty member I would probably require a Texas university to offer a significant premium over a competing offer from a CA university, for example, before I decide to establish my career there.
Even if I’m a non-tenure track faculty member I would probably require a Texas university to offer a significant premium over a competing offer from a CA university, for example, before I decide to establish my career there.
My wife just got one straight out of her PhD, but it's not super common unless you're 1) very cutthroat competitive and 2) willing to move far (in our case, 5 hours from the Bay Area).
Our CS department has been hiring for TT roles continuously since at least when I joined in 2010.
Substantially more than "zero".
This might possibly provide some benefits for adjunct faculty (at the expense of tenure lottery winners):
Demolishing the tenure class system may reduce the social stigma of being an adjunct vs. tenured faculty member.
A noted elsewhere, a mythical possibility of future tenure may become slightly less usable for luring faculty into accepting lower pay.
And since everyone is now an adjunct, adjunct salaries (which are usually terrible) may have to rise overall. Although it will probably still be much lower than traditional faculty salaries, as UT may attract more adjunct applicants.
Adjunct hiring might change from a per-term model (which is terrible) to a yearly model or even longer.
The result could possibly (hopefully?) be higher social status, higher pay, and better job security - for the lucky few adjuncts who manage to get faculty jobs at UT.
Demolishing the tenure class system may reduce the social stigma of being an adjunct vs. tenured faculty member.
A noted elsewhere, a mythical possibility of future tenure may become slightly less usable for luring faculty into accepting lower pay.
And since everyone is now an adjunct, adjunct salaries (which are usually terrible) may have to rise overall. Although it will probably still be much lower than traditional faculty salaries, as UT may attract more adjunct applicants.
Adjunct hiring might change from a per-term model (which is terrible) to a yearly model or even longer.
The result could possibly (hopefully?) be higher social status, higher pay, and better job security - for the lucky few adjuncts who manage to get faculty jobs at UT.
In terms of bills that are coming out of the Texas legislature these days, this is pretty mild.
As a TA at a certain public institution in Texas, the level of some students' incompetence by the time they reach their final year in undergraduate studies is shocking and saddening. And yet, almost no one fails, because there is pressure to pass everyone. One would literally have to do nothing in order to fail. Few professors have the time or energy to deal with these issues, so standards get lower and more students pass without knowing their subject. The only thing protecting professors from retaliation (not acquiescing to pressure from administrators / deans to pass students) is tenure. We can see clearly what will be the effect of this legislation.
This is the republicans punishing groups of people they don't like.
Specifically people who can say what they want because they have no fear of losing their jobs.
Pretty rich coming from the party of "free speech".
Pretty rich coming from the party of "free speech".
>Specifically people who can say what they want because they have no fear of losing their jobs.
Ah, like the Supreme Court. Good thing we don't see anyone suddenly wanting to do away with lifetime appointments there, otherwise there might be some hypocrisy floating around.
Ah, like the Supreme Court. Good thing we don't see anyone suddenly wanting to do away with lifetime appointments there, otherwise there might be some hypocrisy floating around.
You're comparing the ability to speak truth to power to the powerful being able to do whatever they want. I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion these are the same.
[deleted]
Indeed, the state shouldn't be able to silence free-speech regardless of how one feels for the content [1, 2]. One should use reason and logic to counter arguments instead of force [3].
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/02/desantis-f...
[2] https://time.com/6258304/florida-bill-ban-dei-crt-universiti...
[3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/02/desantis-f...
[2] https://time.com/6258304/florida-bill-ban-dei-crt-universiti...
[3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
We've been in a Schmittian friend/enemy political environment for decades now. We've long since abandoned politics-as-societal-optimization-mechanism; it's now just competition for resources. The republicans were just slow to get with the program and are now playing catch-up.
This comment is like a level below whataboutism. You're basically saying "the other side also did something similar" but you didn't provide examples
This is a larger blow to smaller universities like UTSA and UTD that finally have budding research programs. I really wish the Texas government would stay out of people's lives. This is just another bill in the long line of bills this year intended to kill "wokeness". Our government doesn't give a single care about education. As long as they think they can get conforming, uninformed youth out of something, they'll do anything.
Some are arguing that the tenure system is broken. Maybe. If this change was done in good faith to make the system stronger, it is worth considering. But there is little evidence that that is what is going on. Conservatives have been beating the drum for decades that colleges brainwash their kids into being liberals, and so they want control to fire any academic that doesn't confirm to their views.
edit: I'm speaking as a 19 year resident of Austin, Texas who has watched countless other power grabs, including Governor Perry installing biblical literalists to oversee Texas school books that deny evolution and rewriting history -- too much Jefferson and not a mention of Phyllis Schlafley (not joking). The same legislature has pushed a law requiring every K-12 schoolroom to display the Ten Commandments.
edit: I'm speaking as a 19 year resident of Austin, Texas who has watched countless other power grabs, including Governor Perry installing biblical literalists to oversee Texas school books that deny evolution and rewriting history -- too much Jefferson and not a mention of Phyllis Schlafley (not joking). The same legislature has pushed a law requiring every K-12 schoolroom to display the Ten Commandments.
https://archive.ph/ECOij - the page wasn't loading for me for some reason.
[deleted]
If there are trying to reduce entitlement spending, maybe they should start with their own state pension system. Maybe start with state representatives and move from a guarantee benefits system to a 401k or similar system where benefits aren’t guaranteed.
I think at SOME institutions this is needed. Professors who have stopped teaching and just waiting for retirement weigh down universities. Students learn from professors who have a vested interest in their learning. What incentivizes tenured profs?
Getting stronger academics in Texas universities has been an uphill battle for quite awhile. I don't think this will make things any better, and I struggle to see any genuine argument for why this isn't the politically-motivated intent.
in the humanities there is a glut of excellent scholars who would be happy to have a non-tenured professorship which is nevertheless a real job with decent pay, benefits, and working conditions.
in applied technical fields it will be really hard to hire people as tenure and academic freedom are the only reason people deal with the BS of academia over industry.
so this will probably have the opposite effect of what the legislature wants, the pool of left-leaning humanities professors won’t change much, while STEM will be hugely weakened.
in applied technical fields it will be really hard to hire people as tenure and academic freedom are the only reason people deal with the BS of academia over industry.
so this will probably have the opposite effect of what the legislature wants, the pool of left-leaning humanities professors won’t change much, while STEM will be hugely weakened.
While the intentions of this change are admittedly malicious, I support the move away from the traditional concept of tenure.
Tenure is about exploiting researchers through their 20s as PhDs/post-docs and 30s as assistant-professors, with tenure being a possibility at 40. In the best case scenario, these researchers hit 40, and enjoy what is really an early retirement. Reality is, many will find that nothing is good enough to get tenure at an R1 institute.
With the industry moving as fast as it is, professors become obsolete rather quickly. Just look at the huge number of new professors in crypto and NLP, whose entire labs have become obsolete overnight. Honestly, the over-production of PhDs is a big problem today. Hopefully these changes will be the much-needed slap in the face needed for a whole generation of new PhDs to look elsewhere for employment. Tenure is a winner take all system, where the small number who succeed, do it at the expense of the far-too-late disillusionment of the majority.
There are broadly 2 different types of academics. The economically productive ones and the money sinks. The money sink academics (Non-stem, non-business) are doomed to a life in academia, irrespective of tenure. They aren't employable in their profession elsewhere, effectively captives of the system. The economically productive ones will be given great 'deals' by the university anyway. These people are important, and universities will raise wages, give work-life balance deals, allow them to have their own practice and give them long contracts. Tenure is a flaky lever used liberally today, but forcing universities into offering more concrete deals is probably better for the employees overall. College basketball doesn't need to offer tenure to $$hire$$ the very best coaches .
Tenure's main benefits were that professors were unfireable. In 2023, we see professors being practically bullied into submission by students. We see professors lose creative control over their departments with administrative takeover. Professors are slaves to their funding sources, in a manner that is no different than working in industry. The only appeal of tenure is thus idea of 'early academic retirement'. But that too is a lie, because the system will have squeezed every bit out of you. You might as well be a 65-yr-old in a 40 yr old's body by the time you get tenure.
Tenure won't just go away. It will be replaced by more flexible deals. I for one, am looking forward to a change in academia, that adjusts to the death of honor based systems and the realities of a completely messed up supply-demand equation between universities and candidates.
Tenure is about exploiting researchers through their 20s as PhDs/post-docs and 30s as assistant-professors, with tenure being a possibility at 40. In the best case scenario, these researchers hit 40, and enjoy what is really an early retirement. Reality is, many will find that nothing is good enough to get tenure at an R1 institute.
With the industry moving as fast as it is, professors become obsolete rather quickly. Just look at the huge number of new professors in crypto and NLP, whose entire labs have become obsolete overnight. Honestly, the over-production of PhDs is a big problem today. Hopefully these changes will be the much-needed slap in the face needed for a whole generation of new PhDs to look elsewhere for employment. Tenure is a winner take all system, where the small number who succeed, do it at the expense of the far-too-late disillusionment of the majority.
There are broadly 2 different types of academics. The economically productive ones and the money sinks. The money sink academics (Non-stem, non-business) are doomed to a life in academia, irrespective of tenure. They aren't employable in their profession elsewhere, effectively captives of the system. The economically productive ones will be given great 'deals' by the university anyway. These people are important, and universities will raise wages, give work-life balance deals, allow them to have their own practice and give them long contracts. Tenure is a flaky lever used liberally today, but forcing universities into offering more concrete deals is probably better for the employees overall. College basketball doesn't need to offer tenure to $$hire$$ the very best coaches .
Tenure's main benefits were that professors were unfireable. In 2023, we see professors being practically bullied into submission by students. We see professors lose creative control over their departments with administrative takeover. Professors are slaves to their funding sources, in a manner that is no different than working in industry. The only appeal of tenure is thus idea of 'early academic retirement'. But that too is a lie, because the system will have squeezed every bit out of you. You might as well be a 65-yr-old in a 40 yr old's body by the time you get tenure.
Tenure won't just go away. It will be replaced by more flexible deals. I for one, am looking forward to a change in academia, that adjusts to the death of honor based systems and the realities of a completely messed up supply-demand equation between universities and candidates.
tenure was supposed to allow professors to be able to speak their mind without fear of being fired
but apparently modern bureaucracy has evolved to get around this
but apparently modern bureaucracy has evolved to get around this
Hey, when you've got a political base to whip up and make crazy, consequences don't matter...
as far as I know, Australia doesn't have tenure either. But with the contract system they do have, it feels like a combination of "you'll be taken care of" and "...but you still have responsibilities".
That said, it seems stressful for new professors though
That said, it seems stressful for new professors though
> […] it would be the end of UT Austin and Texas A&M as leading research universities. More precisely, it would be the immediate end of our ability to recruit competitively, and the slightly slower end of our competitiveness period, as faculty with options moved elsewhere. This is so because of the economics of faculty hiring. Particularly in STEM fields like computer science, those who become professors typically forgo vastly higher salaries in industry, not to mention equity in startup companies and so on.
https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7243