4 ms·

When you work in industry, your job is to do what you're told. When you do research, your job is to learn new things and tell others about them, no matter who d

When you work in industry, your job is to do what you're told. When you do research, your job is to learn new things and tell others about them, no matter who doesn't like those results. If you're studying earthquakes in Oklahoma, the oil companies won't like it. If you're studying evolution, certain segments of the population won't like it. Tenure is one way of protecting academic freedom. You seem to be thinking of it in terms of job security. As many tenured professors that have been fired over the years for reasons like the university having financial difficulties can tell you, tenure does not provide job security. Of course there is a correlation between the two.

gravypod 10y ago
This makes sense, but are we not at a time where you can simply do all of those things and people won't crucify you? > When you work in industry, your job is to do what you're told. You are told to publish, are you not? It's the same principle except your job has extra steps. I'd also like to point out colleges aren't the end all be all of R&D. The industry does R&D as well and they do crazy R&D without tenure. I've met people who have started companies just so they could do what they want, moved to companies just so they could research one thing, or even convinced their current boss as to why a certain piece of research would be of value. I think this is a much more complete answer then what I've been told before, but it's still quite fishy.
- bachmeier 10y ago
  "are we not at a time where you can simply do all of those things and people won't crucify you?" Are you in the US? I'd say it's pretty clear you can get crucified for stating an unpopular opinion. "I'd also like to point out colleges aren't the end all be all of R&D." And they shouldn't be. They should primarily do work that the private sector is not willing to fund. "I think this is a much more complete answer then what I've been told before, but it's still quite fishy." There are no doubt advantages and disadvantages of tenure. Whether tenure is a good system is definitely up for debate, but the tradeoff is that some research will not be done and some topics will not be addressed in the classroom. There's little incentive to risk your career by jumping into controversial situations. Perhaps we are willing to move to a different model.
  - gravypod 10y ago
    Let me be clear for others who come across this because I'm completely sure that since you've been a student and now work in the system you know where I am coming from as a student. Surely there will be people who read this who have not had the 'pleasure' of being graced with the "bad kind" of tenured professor. In my college experience, which has only been one year, I've met a few types of professors. There is the kind who LOVES teaching and who is amazing at it. This is the only kind of teacher that I'll give a real life example of. If you're going to NJIT and need a math teacher you're going to want to look for these two names: Jimmy Hayes and Kenneth Horwitz. Both don't only want you to learn but they also want to be the one who teaches you. If I could have every professor I meet conduct themselves like this I'd have no problem with tenure. And that's coming from someone who failed the class taught by Hayes. The reason I'm giving such praise to these professors is there is absolutely no way my failing grade was their Hayes fault, it was my own (I had some problems going on in my life at the time). They spent all the time they could preparing us for the exams and also gave us points back if we did something that was incorrectly graded and we could prove it was right. Next there is the kind who "believes in the system". They teach because they enjoy it, they are usually charismatic and good at teaching but that isn't their main focus. They either do this while engaging in research or other projects to help the school or further their field. I have no problem with this second group. It is again someone who puts time and effort into their job. Someone who cares about their work. It's altogether someone who is furthering humanity while not harming others around them. The last professor is someone you don't want. It's the professor who is tenured. That's how all of us students refer to them since these seem to be the only kind of people, in the eye of a student, who actually has it. They are the professor who comes in 15 minutes late to class, consistently, refuses to answer emails or questions, and leaves randomly through the semester. I've actually had one of or physics professors come in on the first day 15 minutes late. He started the lecture (for the class that was meant to be taken along side of Calculus 1) by saying "So does everyone here know how to take the derivative." When everyone is confused, he does a 10-second-basic drawing of what it was. Asked if anyone had any questions. He scanned the room full of raised hands and said "Ok" then went on with the lecture. This happened 10-15 times across the semester. Another incident was that the physics department cobbles together a "sort of practice exam" for each test. I found this out from a friend as my teacher had never talked about nor handed this exam out. The last story I'll share of this horrible professor took place around the time of the 3rd exam. I took the exam and went in the next class to get my scores only to find he had absconded with the only copies of our exam on a "business trip"; we had to wait 3 weeks to get our exam scores. (I had given up at that point and started randomly answering on the exams. For this test I got 17/20 placing me in the top 20% of the test takers.... that might tell you a bit about our exams) So this is my problem with tenure. It's often the WORST of the worst you notice have it while the best of the best struggle to get it since it seems they aren't one to shut up and play ball with the stupid processes needed to get it.
- nzjrs 10y ago
  I think your inherent bias knowing only about your field is distorting your r&d expectations. Can you imagine a private sector narrative that could give rise to CRISPR? That's the sort of blue sky r&d that tenure is designed to protect - basic science r&d is impossible to value.
  - gravypod 10y ago
    I could imagine it, yes. That's the point of R&D: you hire people, ask them to make something that will change the future, they show you continual results and you forward that to your investors so they feel good. This goes the same way as for the developments of technologies such as RF transceivers. It was a magical world changing discovery made by a few private inventors. Is there something making this impossible from happening again? There's lots of research funded by private companies. That being said, I'd say that it is possible to do the same research without tenure. Are you saying that you'd never be allowed to research something as important as CRISPR technology had you not received tenure? If that is the case then that's a problem; if researchers cannot research certain things then there is a larger problem in the academic world and I'd need to be convinced that tenure is the best solution for it.

gravypod 10y ago

This makes sense, but are we not at a time where you can simply do all of those things and people won't crucify you? > When you work in industry, your job is to do what you're told. You are told to publish, are you not? It's the same principle except your job has extra steps. I'd also like to point out colleges aren't the end all be all of R&D. The industry does R&D as well and they do crazy R&D without tenure. I've met people who have started companies just so they could do what they want, moved to companies just so they could research one thing, or even convinced their current boss as to why a certain piece of research would be of value. I think this is a much more complete answer then what I've been told before, but it's still quite fishy.

bachmeier 10y ago
"are we not at a time where you can simply do all of those things and people won't crucify you?" Are you in the US? I'd say it's pretty clear you can get crucified for stating an unpopular opinion. "I'd also like to point out colleges aren't the end all be all of R&D." And they shouldn't be. They should primarily do work that the private sector is not willing to fund. "I think this is a much more complete answer then what I've been told before, but it's still quite fishy." There are no doubt advantages and disadvantages of tenure. Whether tenure is a good system is definitely up for debate, but the tradeoff is that some research will not be done and some topics will not be addressed in the classroom. There's little incentive to risk your career by jumping into controversial situations. Perhaps we are willing to move to a different model.
- gravypod 10y ago
  Let me be clear for others who come across this because I'm completely sure that since you've been a student and now work in the system you know where I am coming from as a student. Surely there will be people who read this who have not had the 'pleasure' of being graced with the "bad kind" of tenured professor. In my college experience, which has only been one year, I've met a few types of professors. There is the kind who LOVES teaching and who is amazing at it. This is the only kind of teacher that I'll give a real life example of. If you're going to NJIT and need a math teacher you're going to want to look for these two names: Jimmy Hayes and Kenneth Horwitz. Both don't only want you to learn but they also want to be the one who teaches you. If I could have every professor I meet conduct themselves like this I'd have no problem with tenure. And that's coming from someone who failed the class taught by Hayes. The reason I'm giving such praise to these professors is there is absolutely no way my failing grade was their Hayes fault, it was my own (I had some problems going on in my life at the time). They spent all the time they could preparing us for the exams and also gave us points back if we did something that was incorrectly graded and we could prove it was right. Next there is the kind who "believes in the system". They teach because they enjoy it, they are usually charismatic and good at teaching but that isn't their main focus. They either do this while engaging in research or other projects to help the school or further their field. I have no problem with this second group. It is again someone who puts time and effort into their job. Someone who cares about their work. It's altogether someone who is furthering humanity while not harming others around them. The last professor is someone you don't want. It's the professor who is tenured. That's how all of us students refer to them since these seem to be the only kind of people, in the eye of a student, who actually has it. They are the professor who comes in 15 minutes late to class, consistently, refuses to answer emails or questions, and leaves randomly through the semester. I've actually had one of or physics professors come in on the first day 15 minutes late. He started the lecture (for the class that was meant to be taken along side of Calculus 1) by saying "So does everyone here know how to take the derivative." When everyone is confused, he does a 10-second-basic drawing of what it was. Asked if anyone had any questions. He scanned the room full of raised hands and said "Ok" then went on with the lecture. This happened 10-15 times across the semester. Another incident was that the physics department cobbles together a "sort of practice exam" for each test. I found this out from a friend as my teacher had never talked about nor handed this exam out. The last story I'll share of this horrible professor took place around the time of the 3rd exam. I took the exam and went in the next class to get my scores only to find he had absconded with the only copies of our exam on a "business trip"; we had to wait 3 weeks to get our exam scores. (I had given up at that point and started randomly answering on the exams. For this test I got 17/20 placing me in the top 20% of the test takers.... that might tell you a bit about our exams) So this is my problem with tenure. It's often the WORST of the worst you notice have it while the best of the best struggle to get it since it seems they aren't one to shut up and play ball with the stupid processes needed to get it.
nzjrs 10y ago
I think your inherent bias knowing only about your field is distorting your r&d expectations. Can you imagine a private sector narrative that could give rise to CRISPR? That's the sort of blue sky r&d that tenure is designed to protect - basic science r&d is impossible to value.
- gravypod 10y ago
  I could imagine it, yes. That's the point of R&D: you hire people, ask them to make something that will change the future, they show you continual results and you forward that to your investors so they feel good. This goes the same way as for the developments of technologies such as RF transceivers. It was a magical world changing discovery made by a few private inventors. Is there something making this impossible from happening again? There's lots of research funded by private companies. That being said, I'd say that it is possible to do the same research without tenure. Are you saying that you'd never be allowed to research something as important as CRISPR technology had you not received tenure? If that is the case then that's a problem; if researchers cannot research certain things then there is a larger problem in the academic world and I'd need to be convinced that tenure is the best solution for it.