if not tenure, what else? (PhD, private school, vs, private)

[eatfastnoodle]

Tenure has been accused of giving incentive to laziness, irresponsibility, among other sins that are quite commonly seen among professors. Even among professors, not all believe the virtue of tenure still warrants its continued existence. But if we were to abolish tenure and introduce serious competition into academia, well, maybe just the prized corner reserved for tenured professors where vicious competition for everything has not yet been in full swing, what alternative system could we use to ensure academic freedom, promote long-term research, and most importantly, attract enough smart people into academia?

Considering the years of schooling required for PhD, brutal pressure for publication, getting grants, etc. the responsibilities of managing essentially an small business (managing money, establishing and maintaining business relationships, managing students, and promote your research/brand, etc), even the 200 to 300 K some of the grant-rich professors I know make a year seem like a very meager financial return. Conversations with current and potential professors repeatedly reveal that the biggest attraction of research jobs is the possibility of getting tenure along with the iron-clad job security and professional freedom which are the hallmarks of tenured positions.

Absent of these two perks, I'm not sure most people would even bother to get into academia, except for the very few with die-hard interests in academia. Even with all the goodies offered by tenure, professors are often some of the oldest looking professionals I've ever seen, a phenomenon I believe in no small part owing to the enormous pressure they operate under, at least before they get tenure. But the negative side of life-long job security is indisputable and many professors practically cease to work on research after the get their tenure, essentially satisfy themselves with muddling through the rest of their lives, a decision I probably would have made considering the work and sacrifice I have made during my PhD year.

Basically, tenure is, IMHO, the only real benefit in academia that's worthy of the work one must put into to get into academia, so removing it would mean removing the only incentive to attract talent people into university. But the current status of tenure is also obviously flawed. So if there would be reform, what would it look like and what it SHOULD look like?

[user_id]

The idea that people would avoid academia if you got ride of tenure I think is pretty absurd. Most people that get Ph.ds....don't go into academia and do not have anything close to a tenured position. Its not just the tenure that makes an academic position attractive vs the alternatives, its just one aspect.

But its an important aspect in the case of research universities. Researchers need to be protected against the whims of the herd, more often than not the most important research is initially disregarded. Without tenure these professors could very well lose their jobs. But unfortunately tenure has been applied outside of research university, community colleges and non-research state colleges also have tenure. In these cases the primary reason for tenure does not exist, they are not doing research in the first place rather they are teaching. Teachers should not have tenure.

The poor teaching quality by some researchers at research university is just a necessary evil, removing tenure in this context would have dire consequences for society at large.

[beachmouse]

In schools that have gotten rid of tenure, reports are that the quality of faculty decreases and that there are many non-renewals of contract that are purely political and have nothing to do with job performance.

[professorsenator]

Tenure is not going anywhere -- it is too ingrained in American higher ed., and any university that got rid of it would find itself at a huge competitive disadvantage in attracting faculty.

Yes, tenure allows for some to be lazy. But most aren't. Most are active in teaching, research, and/or service -- someone may be a publication laggard but they may be a teaching/service workhorse (or vice versa). If you look at the profile of a deprtament faculty at a medium to large university, you'll typicaly see "star names" who are research powerhouses and lesser names who often carry a heavier share of the administrative and/or teaching workload.

Do academics put in 60 hour work weeks? No, most don't. But most of them don't shirk a lot, either.

[John23]

This is coming from a cynical generation y'er

But the idea of tenure, guaranteed employment, ironclad security, full perks, is a far antiquated idea from 50 or 75 years ago.

In a flat world, with 6 billion people, with open knowledge and information (the internet being one platform), the tenure model is destined to crack and change (probably for the worst).

The whole model of academia is going to change in the next 30 years, it simply can't continue. Information will eventually get flattened. The tenured professor (of the past) is going to look like the real estate agent that use to get 6%. The college system is very powerful (like mls and real estate industry). If the real estate industry can crack, so can college. You've already seen in with university of phoenix and online classes. But it'll continue.

There was a thread about the law school bubble, that had this link.

The Dark Side of the Legal Job Market - Law Blog - WSJ

The idea of guaranteed employment with full benefits and security after you've scammed your students is twisted and sick.

[uptown_urbanist]

I think tenure is essential for academic freedom (which in turn is essential for any meaningful institution of higher learning). It's not perfect, and some may take advantage of the system, but it's preferable to every alternative I can think of.

[TabulaRasa]

I've posted this before, but I work for a private school that does not do tenure, we strictly focus on job performance. You are evaluated regularly and all raises, etc. are done solely as merit pay. You either earn them or you don't, just like any other industry. Knowing that you're essentially always being evaluated is pretty useful as an incentive to do a good job, if you don't simply have that innately as an educator. I'm no fan of tenure, given the number of piece of crap, dead wood, do-nothing instructors it protects. I think you should earn the right to hold your job. If you're not doing it, why should you be protected? If you are doing your job, you won't have to worry. Good teachers don't need their jobs protected.

[TabulaRasa]

Originally Posted by eatfastnoodle

Absent of these two perks, I'm not sure most people would even bother to get into academia, except for the very few with die-hard interests in academia.

This doesn't sound like a bad situation, to me.

I've worked in the past with enough educators who are, at best, marginally interested in educating, and marginally interested in academia itself. Give me a profession full of people who are doing because they're die-hard about doing it...please!

[user_id]

Originally Posted by TabulaRasa

I I'm no fan of tenure, given the number of piece of crap, dead wood, do-nothing instructors it protects. I think you should earn the right to hold your job. If you're not doing it, why should you be protected? If you are doing your job, you won't have to worry. Good teachers don't need their jobs protected.

Tenure is not suppose to protected "teachers", its suppose to protect researchers. In the case of research the lines you are giving simply don't apply. A researcher could be "doing their job" just fine, yet be working on something that is unpopular with others in the university. Without tenure this professor would likely be pushed out and replaced with someone that better matches the politics of the department.

[beachmouse]

Which by all accounts is what's been happening regularly in the early years of Florida Gulf Coast U. (no tenure- five year renewable contracts instead)