3 ms·

What if there was no tenure and the pie would be re-divided based on performance every year? If that would disproportionately help the more productive scientist

What if there was no tenure and the pie would be re-divided based on performance every year? If that would disproportionately help the more productive scientists, wouldn't that help attract more funding for science and make the pie bigger for everyone? Why can't science work like the rest of the world?

wolfgke 11y ago
What criteria do you propose to evaluate performance? And how do you plan to compare the performance between different sciences or different areas in some science?
- KKKKkkkk1 11y ago
  Good point. The NSF somehow manages to do this, although I'm sure it doesn't always do it well. Other than individual sports, I don't think there's a field of human endeavor that has a perfect system for measuring performance.
  - _delirium 11y ago
    Part of the problem is that an imperfect measure often isn't better than no measure, unless you're very careful about how the measurement is used. You end up with people devoting huge amounts of resources to gaming the metrics, which produces worse outcomes than even not evaluating people at all would.
santaclaus 11y ago
I've thought that a rolling tenure system would be cool. Depending on how risky your research is, you can apply for 5, 10, 15, or 20 year chunks of time in which you are guaranteed a position at the University. This would allow professors to take on longer term weird or crazy research projects, but would prevent professors from defacto retiring immediately after hitting associate professor.
- anu7df 11y ago
  What is the purpose of the rolling tenure? If the finite length is meant to serve as a stick, I would argue that it is useless. People who do good fundamental research do it because there is nothing else that gives them the satisfaction. Yes there may be a few who defacto retire after hitting the assuared tenure, but if this rolling tenure becomes the norm that would add additional unnecessary risk to most. Fundamental research is risky, and we need people to go down the wrong and useless path to mark it such to keep others from going down that route. The finite length tenure is not conducive to the risk taking process.
- daxfohl 11y ago
  So like pro sports players, except divided by 1000?
whatshisface 11y ago
Basic research, in the short term, can only be motivated by a thirst for knowledge. The kind of psychology that allows us to devote our lives to things that will only show up on a factory floor years after our death is absolutely different than the kind of psychology that drives us to till the fields and pivot our verticals. The fact is, no self-utility optimizing human will see with a horizon beyond one lifetime. Governments can barely do it, and corporations can hardly see into the next quarter.

wolfgke 11y ago

What criteria do you propose to evaluate performance? And how do you plan to compare the performance between different sciences or different areas in some science?

KKKKkkkk1 11y ago
Good point. The NSF somehow manages to do this, although I'm sure it doesn't always do it well. Other than individual sports, I don't think there's a field of human endeavor that has a perfect system for measuring performance.
- _delirium 11y ago
  Part of the problem is that an imperfect measure often isn't better than no measure, unless you're very careful about how the measurement is used. You end up with people devoting huge amounts of resources to gaming the metrics, which produces worse outcomes than even not evaluating people at all would.

santaclaus 11y ago

I've thought that a rolling tenure system would be cool. Depending on how risky your research is, you can apply for 5, 10, 15, or 20 year chunks of time in which you are guaranteed a position at the University. This would allow professors to take on longer term weird or crazy research projects, but would prevent professors from defacto retiring immediately after hitting associate professor.

anu7df 11y ago
What is the purpose of the rolling tenure? If the finite length is meant to serve as a stick, I would argue that it is useless. People who do good fundamental research do it because there is nothing else that gives them the satisfaction. Yes there may be a few who defacto retire after hitting the assuared tenure, but if this rolling tenure becomes the norm that would add additional unnecessary risk to most. Fundamental research is risky, and we need people to go down the wrong and useless path to mark it such to keep others from going down that route. The finite length tenure is not conducive to the risk taking process.
daxfohl 11y ago
So like pro sports players, except divided by 1000?

whatshisface 11y ago

Basic research, in the short term, can only be motivated by a thirst for knowledge. The kind of psychology that allows us to devote our lives to things that will only show up on a factory floor years after our death is absolutely different than the kind of psychology that drives us to till the fields and pivot our verticals. The fact is, no self-utility optimizing human will see with a horizon beyond one lifetime. Governments can barely do it, and corporations can hardly see into the next quarter.