mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
What if College Tenure Dies?
- Thread starter mykevermin
- Start date
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
I would 
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
Rat bastard. Do you want me to read four articles?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='SpazX']It would keep those good-for-nothing communist professors from researching or talking badly about our country![/QUOTE]
Eh. Some of the arguments are good, though. At research universities, everything is irrelevant except for # and quality of pubs. You're not supposed to really pay attention to your teaching or students, either in class or as an advisor. You're not supposed to be collegial or engage in actual service work; sleeping through once-a-month-at-most faculty senate meetings fulfills that requirement.
Everything be damned but research. I'm sure dmaul will be in here sometime in the coming days expressing his agreement with that statement. He's made it clear that he doesn't like teaching, and considers it a necessary nuisance to be dealt with because it's a prerequisite for the job he took on. He'd much rather research all day and never teach a class again. Thing is, I don't believe he's alone in that regard. Yet he's going to be the person who teaches you or your kids if you show up to class - the tenure structure shields senior faculty from actually interacting with human beings in classes. Bully for him if that's what he wants to do. I'm not bothered by what part of the job he prefers, but that the job mandates he do something he's not interested in doing, and that same thing is something research universities don't deem important enough to do well or thoroughly.
Add to that Bill Donoghue's argument (from his book "The Last Professors"), and you're already less likely to see tenure track faculty at a college anyway. You'll get adjuncts and grad students until your late junior/senior year. But you'll pay the same.
I'm finally moving on to a tenure-track gig in a few weeks. It's in my best interest to support tenure. But I do see it as flawed, I do see it as encouraging lethargy amongst all but the best and most motivated scholars, I do see it as encouraging groupthink. But I also see the same thing in the peer review process (well, that's virtually all political bias and simple straight-up laziness, but that's another issue altogether).
I think it's an interesting conversation to have. But as one of the article's comments notes says, is the conversation redundant? The very first thing faculty will do if tenure disappears is unionize, rendering the whole point moot. That said, tenure is slowly disappearing such that we don't really notice it. At the same time, phony divisions are promoted b/w adjunct/temporary faculty and tenure-track faculty - by and large so as to specifically avoid solidarity that underlies unionization.
Eh. Some of the arguments are good, though. At research universities, everything is irrelevant except for # and quality of pubs. You're not supposed to really pay attention to your teaching or students, either in class or as an advisor. You're not supposed to be collegial or engage in actual service work; sleeping through once-a-month-at-most faculty senate meetings fulfills that requirement.
Everything be damned but research. I'm sure dmaul will be in here sometime in the coming days expressing his agreement with that statement. He's made it clear that he doesn't like teaching, and considers it a necessary nuisance to be dealt with because it's a prerequisite for the job he took on. He'd much rather research all day and never teach a class again. Thing is, I don't believe he's alone in that regard. Yet he's going to be the person who teaches you or your kids if you show up to class - the tenure structure shields senior faculty from actually interacting with human beings in classes. Bully for him if that's what he wants to do. I'm not bothered by what part of the job he prefers, but that the job mandates he do something he's not interested in doing, and that same thing is something research universities don't deem important enough to do well or thoroughly.
Add to that Bill Donoghue's argument (from his book "The Last Professors"), and you're already less likely to see tenure track faculty at a college anyway. You'll get adjuncts and grad students until your late junior/senior year. But you'll pay the same.
I'm finally moving on to a tenure-track gig in a few weeks. It's in my best interest to support tenure. But I do see it as flawed, I do see it as encouraging lethargy amongst all but the best and most motivated scholars, I do see it as encouraging groupthink. But I also see the same thing in the peer review process (well, that's virtually all political bias and simple straight-up laziness, but that's another issue altogether).
I think it's an interesting conversation to have. But as one of the article's comments notes says, is the conversation redundant? The very first thing faculty will do if tenure disappears is unionize, rendering the whole point moot. That said, tenure is slowly disappearing such that we don't really notice it. At the same time, phony divisions are promoted b/w adjunct/temporary faculty and tenure-track faculty - by and large so as to specifically avoid solidarity that underlies unionization.
Well I do agree to some extent that the system can lead to mediocrity with people slowing down in productivity after getting promoted to full professor (or even just to associate with tenure). But that's no given. At both where I went to grad school and where I work now the full professors are super productive.
The problem with getting rid of tenure, is that you'd drive away talent. Us professors already get paid pretty crappy relative to what we could make in private research firms or research positions in federal agencies etc.
Take away job security--which is already more stressful than those type of jobs to some degree with all the pressure the first 5 years to be productive and get tenure--and myself and most Assistant Profs I know would have no interest in academic jobs. Who wants a job where you get paid less, work more hours (with no overtime pay etc.) and have more stress that also has no job security?
Then you kill research productivity and stall creation of knowledge, and education quality drops as fewer students are getting chances to learn from top experts in their fields. But research is the main thing when we're talking research universities. Profs at such schools are scholars, not teachers. Our job is to be come experts in our field, generate new knowledge, and share our expertise with students.
The tenure systems weeds out people who aren't productive in generating new knowledge in their discipline, which is the ultimate goal of any scholar. Those who get tenure still have pressure to be productive in publishing, bringing in grant money etc. to get the promotion to full professor. The system is effective in pushing the development of new knowledge, and weeding out those not cut out to be productive in advancing their field.
And even at the point of getting to full professor it's hard to slow down as if one stops publishing etc. they can be given a heavier teaching load etc. as our normal contracts are 50% research and 50% teaching (unfortunately no time specified for all the committee and other service work). And in my experience most people that make it to full professor at research universities are people who love research and are good at it so you don't see much slow down and often see an increase in publications and grants received as they've built up their networks etc.
So as a whole, despite some shortcomings, I think things are better with the tenure system than without. I think the biggest issue that leads to ire over tenure is people outside of academia look at professors as teachers rather than scholars. That's true at liberal arts colleges etc. that are teaching focused rather than research focused. But not at research universities.
That distinction really needs to be made more clear so students can pick what they need. Need small classes, one on one instruction etc.--basically need to be "taught" like in high school etc.--go to a teaching college. Self driven, can learn on your own from assigned readings and listening to lectures etc. and want exposure to experts in the fields rather than teachers knowledgeable on the subject--go to a research university. Just a matter of the individual and how they learn etc.
The problem with getting rid of tenure, is that you'd drive away talent. Us professors already get paid pretty crappy relative to what we could make in private research firms or research positions in federal agencies etc.
Take away job security--which is already more stressful than those type of jobs to some degree with all the pressure the first 5 years to be productive and get tenure--and myself and most Assistant Profs I know would have no interest in academic jobs. Who wants a job where you get paid less, work more hours (with no overtime pay etc.) and have more stress that also has no job security?
Then you kill research productivity and stall creation of knowledge, and education quality drops as fewer students are getting chances to learn from top experts in their fields. But research is the main thing when we're talking research universities. Profs at such schools are scholars, not teachers. Our job is to be come experts in our field, generate new knowledge, and share our expertise with students.
The tenure systems weeds out people who aren't productive in generating new knowledge in their discipline, which is the ultimate goal of any scholar. Those who get tenure still have pressure to be productive in publishing, bringing in grant money etc. to get the promotion to full professor. The system is effective in pushing the development of new knowledge, and weeding out those not cut out to be productive in advancing their field.
And even at the point of getting to full professor it's hard to slow down as if one stops publishing etc. they can be given a heavier teaching load etc. as our normal contracts are 50% research and 50% teaching (unfortunately no time specified for all the committee and other service work). And in my experience most people that make it to full professor at research universities are people who love research and are good at it so you don't see much slow down and often see an increase in publications and grants received as they've built up their networks etc.
So as a whole, despite some shortcomings, I think things are better with the tenure system than without. I think the biggest issue that leads to ire over tenure is people outside of academia look at professors as teachers rather than scholars. That's true at liberal arts colleges etc. that are teaching focused rather than research focused. But not at research universities.
That distinction really needs to be made more clear so students can pick what they need. Need small classes, one on one instruction etc.--basically need to be "taught" like in high school etc.--go to a teaching college. Self driven, can learn on your own from assigned readings and listening to lectures etc. and want exposure to experts in the fields rather than teachers knowledgeable on the subject--go to a research university. Just a matter of the individual and how they learn etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin'] I'm sure dmaul will be in here sometime in the coming days expressing his agreement with that statement. He's made it clear that he doesn't like teaching, and considers it a necessary nuisance to be dealt with because it's a prerequisite for the job he took on. He'd much rather research all day and never teach a class again. Thing is, I don't believe he's alone in that regard. Yet he's going to be the person who teaches you or your kids if you show up to class - the tenure structure shields senior faculty from actually interacting with human beings in classes. Bully for him if that's what he wants to do. I'm not bothered by what part of the job he prefers, but that the job mandates he do something he's not interested in doing, and that same thing is something research universities don't deem important enough to do well or thoroughly.[/quote]
100% true. But to clarify, even though I don't enjoy teaching, I still put a lot of effort into doing a good job as I feel obligated to do so as it is contractually 50% of my job.
Definitely true, though varies by university. Where I'm at now, I and other profs are teaching intro classes in the major. Some sections are taught by adjuncts (and grad students starting this fall with our first cohort of Ph D students). But most of the adjunct taught classes are things that are better taught by an adjunct with field experience us profs don't have--i.e. criminal investigation etc. So some time an adjunct class is a benefit to students as they can learn from someone with relevant experience rather than having a prof with no real knowledge on the topic lecture from a textbook.
As far as the grad student taught classes--those are generally just intro classes which are very basic and any one through their Ph D comps will know more than what's covered in those basic classes so one's not missing much by not getting someone who's finished their dissertation and is a prof vs. someone who has passed their comps but hasn't finished their dissertation yet.
Congrats!
Agree on peer review 100%. Don't have as much issue with the tenure system as you though.
100% true. But to clarify, even though I don't enjoy teaching, I still put a lot of effort into doing a good job as I feel obligated to do so as it is contractually 50% of my job.
Definitely true, though varies by university. Where I'm at now, I and other profs are teaching intro classes in the major. Some sections are taught by adjuncts (and grad students starting this fall with our first cohort of Ph D students). But most of the adjunct taught classes are things that are better taught by an adjunct with field experience us profs don't have--i.e. criminal investigation etc. So some time an adjunct class is a benefit to students as they can learn from someone with relevant experience rather than having a prof with no real knowledge on the topic lecture from a textbook.
As far as the grad student taught classes--those are generally just intro classes which are very basic and any one through their Ph D comps will know more than what's covered in those basic classes so one's not missing much by not getting someone who's finished their dissertation and is a prof vs. someone who has passed their comps but hasn't finished their dissertation yet.
Congrats!
Agree on peer review 100%. Don't have as much issue with the tenure system as you though.
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Your grad department's scholars are on one end of the bell curve, however, in terms of productivity and prestige (and hopefully earnings). Outliers. Good outliers, mind, but the discussion here is about overall patterns of tenure. But if we want to get anecdotal, my dept. had one person who successfully sued their way into associate citing discrimination in 1984. They haven't published since then. An absolute waste of resources - possibly as much as $2 million.
I see your argument in distinguishing research universities from liberal arts colleges - at the same time, it's kind of misleading to talk about "exposure to experts in the fields" - indeed experts, but exposure is pretty trivial. These are the schools where your Sudhir Venkatesh types teach one course a year, publish yet another book on the same fieldwork he did nearly 20 years ago, and pat themselves on the back for "advancing knowledge." I'd also consider your argument embracing the meritocracy of the tenure system as a dogmatic response of the ideal type of tenure. Which is not the real world type of tenure.
Like I said, I'm a supporter of the idea by and large. But I see that there are huge problems in the area, and I don't believe in the slightest that bright people won't stop coming to teach if it goes away - the supercompetitive (and growing) pools of adjunct labor at colleges is enough evidence of that. Thinking that people will stop seeking university jobs is as similar, the way I see it, to thinking that sports events can price themselves high enough so as to potentially turn away every fan (look at going rates for UFC tickets!), or that greater and greater excise taxes will significantly reduce the number of cigarette smokers.
EDIT: Most definitely not saying you don't do your teaching job well, or at the very least don't *try.* But the research environment tends to encourage the kind of attitude by way of exalting #/quality of pubs and little else.
I see your argument in distinguishing research universities from liberal arts colleges - at the same time, it's kind of misleading to talk about "exposure to experts in the fields" - indeed experts, but exposure is pretty trivial. These are the schools where your Sudhir Venkatesh types teach one course a year, publish yet another book on the same fieldwork he did nearly 20 years ago, and pat themselves on the back for "advancing knowledge." I'd also consider your argument embracing the meritocracy of the tenure system as a dogmatic response of the ideal type of tenure. Which is not the real world type of tenure.
Like I said, I'm a supporter of the idea by and large. But I see that there are huge problems in the area, and I don't believe in the slightest that bright people won't stop coming to teach if it goes away - the supercompetitive (and growing) pools of adjunct labor at colleges is enough evidence of that. Thinking that people will stop seeking university jobs is as similar, the way I see it, to thinking that sports events can price themselves high enough so as to potentially turn away every fan (look at going rates for UFC tickets!), or that greater and greater excise taxes will significantly reduce the number of cigarette smokers.
EDIT: Most definitely not saying you don't do your teaching job well, or at the very least don't *try.* But the research environment tends to encourage the kind of attitude by way of exalting #/quality of pubs and little else.
[quote name='mykevermin']Your grad department's scholars are on one end of the bell curve, however, in terms of productivity and prestige (and hopefully earnings). Outliers. Good outliers, mind, but the discussion here is about overall patterns of tenure. But if we want to get anecdotal, my dept. had one person who successfully sued their way into associate citing discrimination in 1984. They haven't published since then. An absolute waste of resources.
[/quote]
But I see the same at where I work now, which is on the other end of the curve. One full professor (who just retired) still brings in a ton of money. The other (department chair) publishes double digit articles every year.
I just don't see much slow down from full professors--the problem where I'm at is some of the associate professors aren't productive--but they never really were. Tenure standards were lower in the past here and people could get it based on teaching and service work. Which isn't the case any more with the new president, provost etc. and the push over the past decade or so to become a serious research university.
So I think for the most part a research based tenure system weeds out those who aren't self driven and thus you don't get a lot of lethargy post tenure. But of course some do slip through the cracks and are just useless after getting tenure. So the system is far from perfect.
It's definitely flawed in places. Going back to my grad program, most the full profs there taught 2-4 courses a year, so exposure was pretty good. But it's definitely a fair point, as at the undergrad level exposure to the top full professors can be limited in many programs so one does need to look at course offerings and see how often the full professors are teaching undergrad classes when picking a program etc.
And again, I agree tenure is flawed, I just don't think it's as bad as you do. I work a hell of a lot harder and try to get more research done than I would if there wasn't tenure pressure. So I definitely think it drives productivity and weeds out people not cut out for it. But there are always people who slip through, or people like Venkatesh that get by on fame after one book etc. and get too many laurels while people truly advancing knowledge and cranking out multiple peer reviewed articles a year on new research don't. But such is life.
I don't think people will stop coming. I just think a lot of top intellectual talent will go elsewhere. I certainly would. I love the academic setting, but there's already a lot to put up with in terms of the pay being dreadful relative to amount of hours worked and education required to get the job, hassles of teaching, etc. etc. Take away the carrot stick of tenure and it's just not worth it anymore vs. going the private sector and making more and working less etc.
Sure. But I'm fine with that as I think that's the way it should be at research universities. Again, we're scholars, not teachers. I've never had a single second of any kind of training on how to teach, nor have most profs. We're trained scholars, not teachers.
[/quote]
But I see the same at where I work now, which is on the other end of the curve. One full professor (who just retired) still brings in a ton of money. The other (department chair) publishes double digit articles every year.
I just don't see much slow down from full professors--the problem where I'm at is some of the associate professors aren't productive--but they never really were. Tenure standards were lower in the past here and people could get it based on teaching and service work. Which isn't the case any more with the new president, provost etc. and the push over the past decade or so to become a serious research university.
So I think for the most part a research based tenure system weeds out those who aren't self driven and thus you don't get a lot of lethargy post tenure. But of course some do slip through the cracks and are just useless after getting tenure. So the system is far from perfect.
It's definitely flawed in places. Going back to my grad program, most the full profs there taught 2-4 courses a year, so exposure was pretty good. But it's definitely a fair point, as at the undergrad level exposure to the top full professors can be limited in many programs so one does need to look at course offerings and see how often the full professors are teaching undergrad classes when picking a program etc.
And again, I agree tenure is flawed, I just don't think it's as bad as you do. I work a hell of a lot harder and try to get more research done than I would if there wasn't tenure pressure. So I definitely think it drives productivity and weeds out people not cut out for it. But there are always people who slip through, or people like Venkatesh that get by on fame after one book etc. and get too many laurels while people truly advancing knowledge and cranking out multiple peer reviewed articles a year on new research don't. But such is life.
I don't think people will stop coming. I just think a lot of top intellectual talent will go elsewhere. I certainly would. I love the academic setting, but there's already a lot to put up with in terms of the pay being dreadful relative to amount of hours worked and education required to get the job, hassles of teaching, etc. etc. Take away the carrot stick of tenure and it's just not worth it anymore vs. going the private sector and making more and working less etc.
Sure. But I'm fine with that as I think that's the way it should be at research universities. Again, we're scholars, not teachers. I've never had a single second of any kind of training on how to teach, nor have most profs. We're trained scholars, not teachers.
I once had a history professor who I'd always wanted to ask why he was teaching at a community college when he could have been teaching at a much larger university. The man has been there for more than 30 years, one of the original faculty when the place opened in the late 70s. I never actually asked him why because I felt like it was none of my business really. I talked to a friend about it once who had also had him for a few classes, he said it was just because he liked teaching, liked the smaller classes and being able to work one on one with students. I always felt like he was too big for a smaller school, like he belonged in a large university and should have been publishing books.
I guess some people just prefer teaching and the intimacy that comes with smaller classes.
I guess some people just prefer teaching and the intimacy that comes with smaller classes.
That's definitely true. If someone loves teaching and wants to focus on that, then a research university is not the place for them.
Teaching excellence is rewarded, but not nearly to the extent that research is. It's harder to focus on being a teacher with all the "publish or perish" pressure. Classes are larger so its harder to do any real teaching. Once you hit 60+ students or so it's hard to do more than lecture.
Now that doens't mean such people are limited to community college. Options also include liberal art colleges of course--though those and other teaching focused universities tend to have pressure to publish textbooks as part of the jobs, but not always. And some departments/universities have some tenure-track teaching positions. None in my current department, but at my grad program there was one tenured teachign position. Came with a heavier teaching load and was also the undergraduate program director for that major.
Teaching excellence is rewarded, but not nearly to the extent that research is. It's harder to focus on being a teacher with all the "publish or perish" pressure. Classes are larger so its harder to do any real teaching. Once you hit 60+ students or so it's hard to do more than lecture.
Now that doens't mean such people are limited to community college. Options also include liberal art colleges of course--though those and other teaching focused universities tend to have pressure to publish textbooks as part of the jobs, but not always. And some departments/universities have some tenure-track teaching positions. None in my current department, but at my grad program there was one tenured teachign position. Came with a heavier teaching load and was also the undergraduate program director for that major.
A few more thoughts on this, and the ire some have at the research focus and thinking faculty at research universities are paid to teach.
One thing I think a lot of people outside of academia aren't aware of is how much money universities make off of faculty research. Every grant dollar brought in and spent is hit with indirect costs (overhead)--which is currently at 50% or more in most universities.
What this means is if you have a research project that will cost $500K to conduct, you have to land a grant for $750K as the university takes that 50% cut on every dollar spent. So the University gets $250 K in that case.
So when you see professors with $200K and up salaries, they tend to be people who've brought in millions of dollars and thus are many times more than paying back their salaries. With exceptions for some that are just really famous for doing research work that doesn't require grant funding, and get the salary for the prestige and name recognition their work brings to the university. But more often it's that and bringing in a shit ton of money.
Also in terms of succesful faculty only teaching 1 or 2 courses a year, that means they are "buying out" some of their classes. The teaching load is generally 4 classes a year--and the pay for each class is thus 12.5% of the person's salary (as teaching is 50% of their contract position, and thus each course is 12.5% of their salary).
What that means is for each class they're not teaching, they're using grant money to pay the university 12.5% of their salary. So say a full prof makes $200K and is buying out 3 courses to only teach one a year. That means he's paying back the school 37.5% of his salary with grant money, or $75,000. The university will then higher adjuncts or grad students to teach those course--and pay for those instructors is $3-4K per course at the 2 places I've worked. So the university pays say $12,000 tops to cover those bought out courses, and pockets $63,000K. Even having just 1 year under my belt, and thus a pretyt small 9 month salary, the university would make a couple grand by me buying out a course. Now where problems come in is when people buy out grad level courses, as those general are then not offered. But generally department chairs make sure every grad class is offered at least every other year (in places where degrees take 2 years minimum).
Point being research is pushed as that's where universities make a ton of money, so it's not like they're paying the big dogs $200K plus and getting little out of it. Much of the university is making money off the big dog research super stars.
One thing I think a lot of people outside of academia aren't aware of is how much money universities make off of faculty research. Every grant dollar brought in and spent is hit with indirect costs (overhead)--which is currently at 50% or more in most universities.
What this means is if you have a research project that will cost $500K to conduct, you have to land a grant for $750K as the university takes that 50% cut on every dollar spent. So the University gets $250 K in that case.
So when you see professors with $200K and up salaries, they tend to be people who've brought in millions of dollars and thus are many times more than paying back their salaries. With exceptions for some that are just really famous for doing research work that doesn't require grant funding, and get the salary for the prestige and name recognition their work brings to the university. But more often it's that and bringing in a shit ton of money.
Also in terms of succesful faculty only teaching 1 or 2 courses a year, that means they are "buying out" some of their classes. The teaching load is generally 4 classes a year--and the pay for each class is thus 12.5% of the person's salary (as teaching is 50% of their contract position, and thus each course is 12.5% of their salary).
What that means is for each class they're not teaching, they're using grant money to pay the university 12.5% of their salary. So say a full prof makes $200K and is buying out 3 courses to only teach one a year. That means he's paying back the school 37.5% of his salary with grant money, or $75,000. The university will then higher adjuncts or grad students to teach those course--and pay for those instructors is $3-4K per course at the 2 places I've worked. So the university pays say $12,000 tops to cover those bought out courses, and pockets $63,000K. Even having just 1 year under my belt, and thus a pretyt small 9 month salary, the university would make a couple grand by me buying out a course. Now where problems come in is when people buy out grad level courses, as those general are then not offered. But generally department chairs make sure every grad class is offered at least every other year (in places where degrees take 2 years minimum).
Point being research is pushed as that's where universities make a ton of money, so it's not like they're paying the big dogs $200K plus and getting little out of it. Much of the university is making money off the big dog research super stars.
What percentage of 4 year schools would you say are research focused? I took a trip to Western Kentucky University recently to talk to them about transferring my AAS degree, aside from the physical size of the campus it felt a lot like a high school. Some of the buildings just felt like high school buildings, like they were just missing lockers in the halls. The classrooms I looked in were probably big enough for around 30 or so people, about the size at my CC. Granted these weren't buildings housing large gen-ed classes that everyone has to take, one was the business building and another was the university college building that contains the non-traditional programs.
I was just surprised that it wasn't really all that different.
I was just surprised that it wasn't really all that different.
And separate post for unrelated thoughts more on the topic of problems with tenure. I would never support scrapping the system, but it does need a lot of tweaking.
-Need more tenure track teaching positions like the one I mentioned above. Gets more classes taught by people with Ph D's as they can teach 6-8 courses a year instead of 4 as their normal teaching load.
-Adjunct faculty and grad students should be paid more per course than they are. You can't pay them what a full professor gets necessarily, but they should at least get as much per class as new assistant professors.
-Along with that, adjuncts and graduate research/teaching assistants (and those teaching their own courses) should be allowed to unionize. They currently have no job security and can be not retained if they have complaints from disgruntled students, parents etc. And they don't have the academic freedom to teach what they want etc. as they can just not be offered a job the following semester (contracts are just for each course) if the chair etc. doesn't like the material they cover for political reasons etc. That's a strong benefit of the tenure system, you can't be fired because someone disagrees with your opinion, or you have disgruntled students because your course is difficult etc. etc. Academic freedom is the perk of a tenure track job vs. a private sector job. But adjuncts should have some protections as well.
-More flexibility in the tenure clock. Ability to stop/extend it for people to have kids etc. It's really hard to have any semblance of a life pre-tenure at a research university, so you see many people waiting until after that to have kids--and then you're talking late 30s for most people. The systems is needed to push people to work hard and be productive, but needs to allow for more work-live balance. Now only workaholics need apply.
-Systems in place to ensure people remain productive after getting tenure. Best way to do that is to move people who stop publishing or getting grants to teaching positions where they have to teach 6-8 classes a year instead of 4. And this has happened in one of my colleagues department where they bumped a non-productive Assoc. Prof up to a 7 course load. Person then quit, which was the goal of course so they can fill the position with a productive scholar. But at least even if the person stays you're getting more credit hours covered and the person is pulling their weight--where as before they weren't doing anything for the 50% of their salary that is contractually given for research expectations.
-Need more tenure track teaching positions like the one I mentioned above. Gets more classes taught by people with Ph D's as they can teach 6-8 courses a year instead of 4 as their normal teaching load.
-Adjunct faculty and grad students should be paid more per course than they are. You can't pay them what a full professor gets necessarily, but they should at least get as much per class as new assistant professors.
-Along with that, adjuncts and graduate research/teaching assistants (and those teaching their own courses) should be allowed to unionize. They currently have no job security and can be not retained if they have complaints from disgruntled students, parents etc. And they don't have the academic freedom to teach what they want etc. as they can just not be offered a job the following semester (contracts are just for each course) if the chair etc. doesn't like the material they cover for political reasons etc. That's a strong benefit of the tenure system, you can't be fired because someone disagrees with your opinion, or you have disgruntled students because your course is difficult etc. etc. Academic freedom is the perk of a tenure track job vs. a private sector job. But adjuncts should have some protections as well.
-More flexibility in the tenure clock. Ability to stop/extend it for people to have kids etc. It's really hard to have any semblance of a life pre-tenure at a research university, so you see many people waiting until after that to have kids--and then you're talking late 30s for most people. The systems is needed to push people to work hard and be productive, but needs to allow for more work-live balance. Now only workaholics need apply.
-Systems in place to ensure people remain productive after getting tenure. Best way to do that is to move people who stop publishing or getting grants to teaching positions where they have to teach 6-8 classes a year instead of 4. And this has happened in one of my colleagues department where they bumped a non-productive Assoc. Prof up to a 7 course load. Person then quit, which was the goal of course so they can fill the position with a productive scholar. But at least even if the person stays you're getting more credit hours covered and the person is pulling their weight--where as before they weren't doing anything for the 50% of their salary that is contractually given for research expectations.
[quote name='Clak']What percentage of 4 year schools would you say are research focused? [/QUOTE]
From one of those NY Times segments above, it's said about 10% of US universities and colleges are research focused. Not sure if that's 10% of four year schools, or 10% including the 2 year colleges.
But yeah, it's a minority of colleges. Basically it's going to be the 1-3 major state universities and maybe a big private university or two in most states. Occasionally a smaller university in a state will have research faculty--but kind of a stretch to call them research focused as teaching loads are generally higher etc. Higher number in hugely populated states like CA of course.
From one of those NY Times segments above, it's said about 10% of US universities and colleges are research focused. Not sure if that's 10% of four year schools, or 10% including the 2 year colleges.
But yeah, it's a minority of colleges. Basically it's going to be the 1-3 major state universities and maybe a big private university or two in most states. Occasionally a smaller university in a state will have research faculty--but kind of a stretch to call them research focused as teaching loads are generally higher etc. Higher number in hugely populated states like CA of course.
I live in fear of being fired every single day in this economy even though I'm fairly confident that I'm good at my job. I would gladly take a hefty pay cut to guarantee my position for as long as I wanted it. I'm opposed to tenure but only because it's not a possibility for me. If you can get it then good for you.
[quote name='javeryh']I live in fear of being fired every single day in this economy even though I'm fairly confident that I'm good at my job. I would gladly take a hefty pay cut to guarantee my position for as long as I wanted it. I'm opposed to tenure but only because it's not a possibility for me. If you can get it then good for you.[/QUOTE]
And like I said, that's the trade off.
The pay is not good for the hours worked.
But if you get tenure you at least have job security. And the even bigger perk is the freedom. Complete freedom to do whatever research you want, teach your courses how you want (as long as they're on topic and people are passing etc.), freedom to work from home, not work mornings etc. as you can work your shit ton of hours during whatever time you want aside from meetings, classes etc.
Take away tenure and you're taking away not only the job security, but also that academic freedom since it would then be easier to fire people who the department chair disagreed with, or did controversial research etc.
Then it's no longer worth the reduced salary vs. private sector jobs. Which is why the tenure system just needs tweaked and improved rather than scrapped if academia wants to keep its stranglehold on top scholars.
And like I said, that's the trade off.
The pay is not good for the hours worked.
But if you get tenure you at least have job security. And the even bigger perk is the freedom. Complete freedom to do whatever research you want, teach your courses how you want (as long as they're on topic and people are passing etc.), freedom to work from home, not work mornings etc. as you can work your shit ton of hours during whatever time you want aside from meetings, classes etc.
Take away tenure and you're taking away not only the job security, but also that academic freedom since it would then be easier to fire people who the department chair disagreed with, or did controversial research etc.
Then it's no longer worth the reduced salary vs. private sector jobs. Which is why the tenure system just needs tweaked and improved rather than scrapped if academia wants to keep its stranglehold on top scholars.
[quote name='dmaul1114']And like I said, that's the trade off.
The pay is not good for the hours worked.
But if you get tenure you at least have job security. And the even bigger perk is the freedom. Complete freedom to do whatever research you want, teach your courses how you want (as long as they're on topic and people are passing etc.), freedom to work from home, not work mornings etc. as you can work your shit ton of hours during whatever time you want aside from meetings, classes etc.
Take away tenure and you're taking away not only the job security, but also that academic freedom since it would then be easier to fire people who the department chair disagreed with, or did controversial research etc.
Then it's no longer worth the reduced salary vs. private sector jobs. Which is why the tenure system just needs tweaked and improved rather than scrapped if academia wants to keep its stranglehold on top scholars.[/QUOTE]
I'm one of those weirdos who puts fringe benefits like that on a pedestal higher than what they probably should be.
I work part-time and haven't looked for a full time job partially because there is nothing out there, but also because they're flexible with my schedule, don't care if you take long for lunch, don't breath down my neck watching me work, and are loose about letting you leave for appointments, etc. That's worth something for me.
The pay is not good for the hours worked.
But if you get tenure you at least have job security. And the even bigger perk is the freedom. Complete freedom to do whatever research you want, teach your courses how you want (as long as they're on topic and people are passing etc.), freedom to work from home, not work mornings etc. as you can work your shit ton of hours during whatever time you want aside from meetings, classes etc.
Take away tenure and you're taking away not only the job security, but also that academic freedom since it would then be easier to fire people who the department chair disagreed with, or did controversial research etc.
Then it's no longer worth the reduced salary vs. private sector jobs. Which is why the tenure system just needs tweaked and improved rather than scrapped if academia wants to keep its stranglehold on top scholars.[/QUOTE]
I'm one of those weirdos who puts fringe benefits like that on a pedestal higher than what they probably should be.
I work part-time and haven't looked for a full time job partially because there is nothing out there, but also because they're flexible with my schedule, don't care if you take long for lunch, don't breath down my neck watching me work, and are loose about letting you leave for appointments, etc. That's worth something for me.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Honestly this is the kind of thing that will affect Myke and Dmaul, and noone else on this board.
Welcome to laissez-faire capitalism boys, ain't America grand
Welcome to laissez-faire capitalism boys, ain't America grand
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Not necessarily. It will effect us on one *side*, but changing/removing it/unionizing faculty - whatever the form takes, it will impact the makeup of faculty and therefore the college experienced at that time by students.
Tenure is something to be reconsidered, though I don't agree with its dismissal entirely (nor do I agree with post-tenure review, a concept that keeps the title of tenure but really destroys it wholesale). A more pressing problem for colleges and universities are the enormous resources appropriated to college athletics at the expense of higher learning.
My current job never materialized into a tenure-line position for one reason: money. The lack came from two sources: budget cuts at the state level, which coincided with increases in funding for athletics. A few months ago our student paper (lamentably the best paper in the town) had two headlines:
1) Univ. President/Provost announced an immediate university-wide freeze on all tenure-line hires. There had been a freeze in effect since 9/2008 (!), but some exceptions were made. This is a whole freeze, no exceptions. Our dept. lost 3 tenure-line faculty this year, and with my leaving, they are
ed. The dept doesn't get to keep *any* of those tenure lines at all, and a 4th may be right behind them.
2) University audit finds $7 million in previously unaccounted for athletic spending. Oops.
I don't know how common the philosophy is where universities are run by people whose guiding philosophy is the might-as-well-take-philanthropists-donations-to-the-slot-machine "put it all in sports and students will come, education quality be damned" mentality. But that's what it is here for certain.
My conservative guess (based on no numbers, but a cynical view of economic recovery, knowledge fo the university's priorities, and the monstrously bureaucratic process) is that it will take our department a *minimum* of 8-10 years to recover from what its lost in the past 9 months alone, and that's assuming no other damage happens.
I feel hella sorry for the students. But they get to go to football games for free, so that's something, I guess.
Tenure is something to be reconsidered, though I don't agree with its dismissal entirely (nor do I agree with post-tenure review, a concept that keeps the title of tenure but really destroys it wholesale). A more pressing problem for colleges and universities are the enormous resources appropriated to college athletics at the expense of higher learning.
My current job never materialized into a tenure-line position for one reason: money. The lack came from two sources: budget cuts at the state level, which coincided with increases in funding for athletics. A few months ago our student paper (lamentably the best paper in the town) had two headlines:
1) Univ. President/Provost announced an immediate university-wide freeze on all tenure-line hires. There had been a freeze in effect since 9/2008 (!), but some exceptions were made. This is a whole freeze, no exceptions. Our dept. lost 3 tenure-line faculty this year, and with my leaving, they are
ed. The dept doesn't get to keep *any* of those tenure lines at all, and a 4th may be right behind them.2) University audit finds $7 million in previously unaccounted for athletic spending. Oops.
I don't know how common the philosophy is where universities are run by people whose guiding philosophy is the might-as-well-take-philanthropists-donations-to-the-slot-machine "put it all in sports and students will come, education quality be damned" mentality. But that's what it is here for certain.
My conservative guess (based on no numbers, but a cynical view of economic recovery, knowledge fo the university's priorities, and the monstrously bureaucratic process) is that it will take our department a *minimum* of 8-10 years to recover from what its lost in the past 9 months alone, and that's assuming no other damage happens.
I feel hella sorry for the students. But they get to go to football games for free, so that's something, I guess.
[quote name='2DMention']I'm one of those weirdos who puts fringe benefits like that on a pedestal higher than what they probably should be.
I work part-time and haven't looked for a full time job partially because there is nothing out there, but also because they're flexible with my schedule, don't care if you take long for lunch, don't breath down my neck watching me work, and are loose about letting you leave for appointments, etc. That's worth something for me.[/QUOTE]
100% worth a ton to me. That's the main reason (along with academic freedom) that I take the lesser pay, higher stress levels, and putting up with teaching.
I lucked out on that front. Got some furlough days last year because all state schools had to take them, but my university and department haven't been hard hit so much as enrollment (university wide and in our major) has been increasing dramatically over the past decade or so and that helped off set a lot of the state budget crunch. While the other state universities have been more stable in enrollment size and didn't have that to help buffer it.
I work part-time and haven't looked for a full time job partially because there is nothing out there, but also because they're flexible with my schedule, don't care if you take long for lunch, don't breath down my neck watching me work, and are loose about letting you leave for appointments, etc. That's worth something for me.[/QUOTE]
100% worth a ton to me. That's the main reason (along with academic freedom) that I take the lesser pay, higher stress levels, and putting up with teaching.
I lucked out on that front. Got some furlough days last year because all state schools had to take them, but my university and department haven't been hard hit so much as enrollment (university wide and in our major) has been increasing dramatically over the past decade or so and that helped off set a lot of the state budget crunch. While the other state universities have been more stable in enrollment size and didn't have that to help buffer it.
I'm glad you brought that up, I've never understood how schools are even allowed to spend so much money on athletics programs. I don't know what the justification is, if it helps lure students to the school or what exactly, but it seems to fly in the face of education.
I remember reading this for the first time and not being able to comprehend how it's possible for college students to basically not be able to read.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/260792-best-of-the-undefeated-and-the-unranked
What didn't surprise me was that they were referring to players on the football team. Schools (and especially coaches) will do nearly anything to get good players on their teams, when people like that shouldn't even be at the school. Athletes always get preferential treatment by schools and it sickens me that it's at the expense of everything else.
I remember reading this for the first time and not being able to comprehend how it's possible for college students to basically not be able to read.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/260792-best-of-the-undefeated-and-the-unranked
What didn't surprise me was that they were referring to players on the football team. Schools (and especially coaches) will do nearly anything to get good players on their teams, when people like that shouldn't even be at the school. Athletes always get preferential treatment by schools and it sickens me that it's at the expense of everything else.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't know how common the philosophy is where universities are run by people whose guiding philosophy is the might-as-well-take-philanthropists-donations-to-the-slot-machine "put it all in sports and students will come, education quality be damned" mentality. But that's what it is here for certain.
...
I feel hella sorry for the students. But they get to go to football games for free, so that's something, I guess.[/QUOTE]
Are our bread and circuses not to your liking?
...
I feel hella sorry for the students. But they get to go to football games for free, so that's something, I guess.[/QUOTE]
Are our bread and circuses not to your liking?
My school was a very research-focused school. Of course, it could have simply been because I was in engineering. I can count on one hand the number of professors who were actually capable of teaching. In fact, some of the worst professors were the ones who brought in the most research dollars and had the highest prestige.
One of the best professors I had in college was not doing a lot of research.
One of the worst professors I had in college was doing a ton of research.
Guess which one got tenure and is still teaching, guess which one is gone?
We did those SPOT forms at the end of every semester. It's clear they'reing pointless, especially if the professor is doing awesome research.
One of the worst professors I had in college was doing a ton of research.
Guess which one got tenure and is still teaching, guess which one is gone?
We did those SPOT forms at the end of every semester. It's clear they're
ing pointless, especially if the professor is doing awesome research.Yeah, the student evaluations don't get a lot of weight on the tenure process. They can get someone rejected if their research record is borderline in terms of what's expected for tenure (having excellent evals can get you through, while poor may be the final straw that gets you rejected).
But if the person is publishing a ton, bringing in a lot of money etc., they couldn't give a shit less about student evaluation ratings.
It's bascially what I said earlier--we're scholars, not teachers. I didnt' get a single second of training on how to teach through out my 7 years of grad school.
If a student is student really needs/wants to be taught by great teachers, a research focused university probably isn't the right choice for them. Research universities/departments are better suited to students already strong intellecually and just wanting to do self learning with guidance from profs rather than needing one one one teaching. You just won't get a lot of that at research focused places as the profs aren't trained teachers, classes tend to be large etc. etc.
But if the person is publishing a ton, bringing in a lot of money etc., they couldn't give a shit less about student evaluation ratings.
It's bascially what I said earlier--we're scholars, not teachers. I didnt' get a single second of training on how to teach through out my 7 years of grad school.
If a student is student really needs/wants to be taught by great teachers, a research focused university probably isn't the right choice for them. Research universities/departments are better suited to students already strong intellecually and just wanting to do self learning with guidance from profs rather than needing one one one teaching. You just won't get a lot of that at research focused places as the profs aren't trained teachers, classes tend to be large etc. etc.
Seems to me that if one plans to work in research, a research focused school would be best. For everyone else with no plans to work in research or education, a normal school would be best. Am I wrong in thinking that? Since obviously going to a research focused school would give you a chance to be exposed to it.
edit- Liberal arts!?! Youing pinko.
edit- Liberal arts!?! You
ing pinko.[quote name='Clak']Seems to me that if one plans to work in research, a research focused school would be best. For everyone else with no plans to work in research or education, a normal school would be best. Am I wrong in thinking that? Since obviously going to a research focused school would give you a chance to be exposed to it.
[/QUOTE]
People interested in research should definitely go to a research university. And seek out opportunities to work on project with profs etc.
I don't think by any means that ONLY such people should go to research schools. Just that it's going to be a bad fit if you're not a self driven person who can learn on their own and just need guidance in the form of assigned readings, class lectures, and access to an expert to ask questions of etc.
They're just not a good setting for people that need to be taught everything and aren't driven enough to do self learning etc.
That's my take on it. I have far to many students that just lack the interest and/or ability to put effort into their education as they were used to being spoon fed everything throughout their time in public schools and haven't learned much in the way of critical thinking and the joy of learning itself etc.
[/QUOTE]
People interested in research should definitely go to a research university. And seek out opportunities to work on project with profs etc.
I don't think by any means that ONLY such people should go to research schools. Just that it's going to be a bad fit if you're not a self driven person who can learn on their own and just need guidance in the form of assigned readings, class lectures, and access to an expert to ask questions of etc.
They're just not a good setting for people that need to be taught everything and aren't driven enough to do self learning etc.
That's my take on it. I have far to many students that just lack the interest and/or ability to put effort into their education as they were used to being spoon fed everything throughout their time in public schools and haven't learned much in the way of critical thinking and the joy of learning itself etc.
rumblebear
CAGiversary!
Umm you do know most universities employ adjust professors who are paid ~15-20k a year without benefits. Of the few who managed to get into tenure track positions, most do not get tenure after ~6 year stint, and not getting tenure meant being fired and the end of one's career, as they are no longer employable in any other universities. You all should be grateful that so many intellectuals chose to pursue these slave-wage, no security jobs for the betterment of our children.
Not entirely true on the tenure track part. Outside of the ivy league schools and some other top universities, the majority of people who stay the 5 years and put in for tenure review get it. Those who aren't cut out for it tend to quit before going up for tenure.
And not getting tenure doesn't mean you can't get another tenure track job. It usually means you'd have to step down to a lower ranked school etc., but if you have an ok research record etc. you can go somewhere else and try again. There's no black list that keeps people who get rejected from going elsewhere to another tenure track position and going up for tenure in a year or two. Universities have widely varying standards from each other--even within universities the standards very widely between colleges.
But the real key is to not go up if you're don't have the CV to be pretty comfortable. A decent amount of assistant profs work 2 or 3 years, then switch universities and "give back" a year or two of their tuenure to have a longer time to to beef up their record.
And not getting tenure doesn't mean you can't get another tenure track job. It usually means you'd have to step down to a lower ranked school etc., but if you have an ok research record etc. you can go somewhere else and try again. There's no black list that keeps people who get rejected from going elsewhere to another tenure track position and going up for tenure in a year or two. Universities have widely varying standards from each other--even within universities the standards very widely between colleges.
But the real key is to not go up if you're don't have the CV to be pretty comfortable. A decent amount of assistant profs work 2 or 3 years, then switch universities and "give back" a year or two of their tuenure to have a longer time to to beef up their record.
elwood731
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Clak']Seems to me that if one plans to work in research, a research focused school would be best. For everyone else with no plans to work in research or education, a normal school would be best. Am I wrong in thinking that? Since obviously going to a research focused school would give you a chance to be exposed to it.
edit- Liberal arts!?! Youing pinko.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much. If you plan to pursue a PhD, then a research university is probably best for you However, that's not even entirely true since most people look favorably on someone who gets their BS/BA from somewhere different than their PhD. Most undergrads aren't getting a lot of hands-on time with real research, anyway. That's mostly left to the grad students.
But if you plan to go into the sciences, a research university is going to have the equipment and resources you simply can't have at a small, private university most of the time.
But there's a more basic issue beyond this when choosing a college, and I think it's been touched on here. If you're a good student, generally you'll be best going to a large university that offers plenty of opportunities. There's more sports, clubs, classes, majors, variety of instructors, etc. to benefit you there.
On the other hand, if you struggle with school and need more one-on-one attention, you can't beat a small private school. At many large universities you may see a professor once around campus. At smaller schools you'll get to know your professors and them you.
College is about finding the right fit for you, and there's no universal sizing guide.
edit- Liberal arts!?! You
ing pinko.[/QUOTE]Pretty much. If you plan to pursue a PhD, then a research university is probably best for you However, that's not even entirely true since most people look favorably on someone who gets their BS/BA from somewhere different than their PhD. Most undergrads aren't getting a lot of hands-on time with real research, anyway. That's mostly left to the grad students.
But if you plan to go into the sciences, a research university is going to have the equipment and resources you simply can't have at a small, private university most of the time.
But there's a more basic issue beyond this when choosing a college, and I think it's been touched on here. If you're a good student, generally you'll be best going to a large university that offers plenty of opportunities. There's more sports, clubs, classes, majors, variety of instructors, etc. to benefit you there.
On the other hand, if you struggle with school and need more one-on-one attention, you can't beat a small private school. At many large universities you may see a professor once around campus. At smaller schools you'll get to know your professors and them you.
College is about finding the right fit for you, and there's no universal sizing guide.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd be happy to see tenure gone. I had 1 professor for an intro course for my major that you really needed to learn the basics from for later courses. He was horrible, I am not joking he made over 20 mistakes in 1 class. Almost the entire class was failing and I went to my academic advisor to discuss it with them. Their response was basically they know the professor is horrible but he is tenured so there is nothing they can do and that is why they have him teach the intro courses. He had to curve the grade where a 50 - 59 was a B. Great except when you get to the mid level courses and are lost.
bread's done