5 ms·

Extremely unpopular opinion: Let's cut both the extra admin, and excess tenured professors. In fact, the entire tenure system should be completely upended. At m

Extremely unpopular opinion: Let's cut both the extra admin, and excess tenured professors. In fact, the entire tenure system should be completely upended. At my alma mater there were a lot of professors who didn't have enough students sign up for their classes, or their field of study was phased out, or reduced. Instead they sat around doing "research" and when they were forced to teach, quite a few openly expressed disdain for teaching.

chriskanan 9y ago
As a tenure-track professor, obviously I'm biased, but tenure doesn't mean you don't have to work. Professors still have to pull their weight around the university and department. If nobody takes their classes or they aren't bringing in research dollars, that would be a problem that would be brought up in their performance appraisals. The vast majority of tenured professors make about 1/2 to 1/4 of what their value is in industry, and at research institutions most work 60+ hours per week. On average, I work far harder now than I did as a PhD student or when I was in industry. An interesting alternative tenure are renewable five year contracts, which are used at some teaching universities and some prestigious research institutes. About a year before the contract expires, a professor at these places has to document their successes and convince the institute to renew their contract. The idea is that a professor basically would be "going up for tenure" every five years (but not receiving it, just getting their contract renewed for 5 more years). If they start getting lazy, their contracts don't need to be renewed. Going up for tenure requires putting together about 100-200 pages of documentation describing your research, pedagogy, service, etc.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  What impacts can performance appraisals have on a tenured professor? Is it possible to be fired or have your salary severely cut simply from poor performance?
  - ams6110 9y ago
    Almost never. You'll get fired if you sexually harass a student, but not for performance in the classroom.
  - justiazlid88881 9y ago
    As a tenured professor I can say something about that. The short answer is, I don't really know the limits and don't want to know. They can basically freeze your salary and not increase it, which over time can amount to a lot. I have heard of salary cuts in rumor, but nothing firm. Basically they can make your life a complete living hell, which is more unpleasant than it sounds. At my university, I've noticed a trend where they have been increasing the number of bullshit rules; it seems like what they're doing is increasing the reasons they can have for firing people, in a kind of HR mindset. Importantly, though, at my department, I can't think of anyone who's just a slacker. They're just not there. The weird thing is that some people who have reliably brought in grant money I think do poor actual research--they are funded because the areas sound important, much like terrorism or threats to children are always a good way of sidestepping political criticism. Conversely, some who have been poor at grant funding have been insanely cited. And then there are people who do neither, but who are powerhouse teachers. To be honest, what constitutes "poor performance" is at the crux of a lot of issues. Increasingly, this means one thing, which is bringing in grants so universities can siphon off money in the form of "indirect costs." However, with concerns about replicability in science, is that really the right goal? I mean, if you need the money to fund your research, fine, but what if you don't? Should you still be obligated to search for money you don't need and the agencies know you don't need, just so universities can take a cut? The whole thing is a mess. As someone wanting out of academics but without a clear route to that, I've tried to think honestly about this, and I think getting rid of tenure would only make things worse. To some extent, med schools have gotten rid of tenure (if in practice if not on paper), and here we are, with the replicability crisis. The whole point of tenure is to avoid problems like the replication crisis. Academic politics is cutthroat, and tenure is about the only thing that makes the whole thing worth it. It's not even a risk-aversion issue, it just seems like a common-sense thing if you're in the middle of it. The only thing I can think of that's comparable is SCOTUS--I've realized that my problem with that isn't the lifetime appointments that protect from political crap somewhat, it's the fact that the bar for appointment isn't high enough. Really, I'm not feeling the prestige of being a professor, even though I'm at a large research university. To me, it feels like I'm a vilified class, sort of like a lawyer. One thing that I am puzzled by as a professor is how this idea came about that the value of a university education is in the classroom. To me, this makes no sense. If I were to give an incoming student advice about how to make the most of their education, I would say: get involved with research. Find faculty you can get to know and work one-on-one with. That's what you are getting out of it. To be honest, I'd love to do MOOCs and whatnot, as it makes a lot of sense to me, more sense than a lecture course. But in the end, I think it's the small, one-on-one attention that's really where the heart of a university education should be. I have a lot to say about this all, but it's difficult to put in words. People tend to oversimplify a lot of things about problems in academics, but the near future seems very bleak to me in a number of areas--not just academics but also business, tech, health care--as power becomes increasingly concentrated in an administrative elite. Increasingly I feel treated as a widget-maker, like administration expects everyone to conform to some dean's stereotyped wet dream of what a tenured STEM professor should look like. My rough recommendations for solving the academic crisis, at least in the US: * states, or someone, starts funding universities again at pre-1990s levels (or be at peace with no public unis anymore) * administration serves faculty, not the other way around * federal grants eliminate indirect costs (like a lot of private grants), or at least don't allow facility costs that aren't explicitly justified (to the GOP's credit, they proposed that and there was massive pushback, which was unfortunate) * solve problems with the health care system * businesses take responsibility for vetting and training employees--don't push that responsibility onto universities, and recognize people can grow * students need to see university educations as something they participate in, not consume. My inkling is that academic problems aren't really so different from problems in many other areas. It's the same old-same old: they're becoming increasingly politicized, increasingly hierarchically structured with an administrative elite controlling everyone else, people don't want to pay for anything because they themselves don't have the money, etc. etc. etc.
- bllguo 9y ago
  Hmm, on the other hand it seems like a waste of time for professors to have to compile 100-200 page reports like that. Surely there are simpler heuristics for identifying egregiously lazy profs
- ams6110 9y ago
  As a university staff employee, I've seen very little indication that anyone is ever let go on the basis of performance. They might get shifted off the upward track, but they will rarely get a pay cut and almost never get fired.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  >The vast majority of tenured professors make about 1/2 to 1/4 of what their value is in industry, and at research institutions most work 60+ hours per week. On average, I work far harder now than I did as a PhD student or when I was in industry. You should probably join an academic unionization movement.
sir_kin 9y ago
The purpose of universities is twofold: to educate and to produce new knowledge. You seem to have the mindset that most of a professor's work should be teaching-related. People don't do PhDs because they want to teach, they do it because they love their field. And a professor's status (and funding!) depends on a history of producing high quality (and quantity) research, not their teaching prowess.
- sevensor 9y ago
  Mind your generalizations there. I stated a PhD program because I wanted to do something about the poor preparation of my colleagues. I wanted to teach. But I learned to my chagrin that that's not what gets you hired, nor is it what gets you tenure. So I left academia once I got my degree. I don't think it's even true of all those who remain that they're there because they love research. Some of them are like me, but with more perseverence. Swimming against the tide, trying to teach.
- stale2002 9y ago
  That's great that PHDs are good at research, and engage in that. But personally, I want to be taught by a professional teacher who specializes in teaching and isn't spending any of their valuable time doing research. Researchers should research and teachers should teach. It makes no sense to me that researchers, who do not enjoy teaching and would rather be researching, are forced to teach.
- wbillingsley 9y ago
  > People don't do PhDs because they want to teach, they do it because they love their field. And a professor's status (and funding!) depends on a history of producing high quality (and quantity) research, not their teaching prowess. Actually that's not quite true. Most continuing academics in Australia are "40/40/20" teaching/research/service. So at least on-paper, the teaching is on an equal footing with the research. In practice, universities tend to specialise. Research groups in the university's focus areas will in addition have a large number of post-docs, research fellows, and other non-teaching staff, balancing that research area far more towards research. And the academics leading those grants will point to the grant money they are bringing in and get a lot of "teaching relief" so they can focus on it. And yes, they'll tend to get promoted faster. However, this also means that some of the other academics in that area (and in all the other fields that go to supporting it) end up having to focus more strongly on the teaching, to make this work. While you can locally optimise yourself if you're keener on research than teaching, most schools receive more of their money from teaching than from research, and it is also the teaching that produces the future PhD and post-docs to fuel the research, so overall they still have to retain a delicate balance between research and teaching.
rifung 9y ago
Isn't research a large part of what universities are for though? I don't want to argue that tenure is the best system but it exists for a reason: so that those who have proved themselves can pursue research which is longer term and carries more risk. I don't think it makes sense to get rid of it without a proper replacement. University is pretty much the only place where people can do truly long term research. The only exception I can think of is Microsoft Research and, besides being only limited to CS, I believe they've recently taken a turn to trying to align more with products.
- munin 9y ago
  You can't even do long term work at a university because you still need the funds for your employees / lab / equipment / materials / subjects. The university doesn't give you those funds, they only pay your salary, when you're tenured, so if you have tenure but no grant funding, it's just you in an office with a blackboard. Sometimes that is enough (like in pure math) but there are lots of pursuits that are completely ruled out by the absence of additional funding.
- stale2002 9y ago
  Research is fine. But it should be funded by the government, and NOT by student tuition. Researchers should be spending 100% of their time researching. And teachers should be spending 100% of their time teaching. It makes no sense to me that researchers, who don't want to be teaching, are instead forced to teach.

chriskanan 9y ago

As a tenure-track professor, obviously I'm biased, but tenure doesn't mean you don't have to work. Professors still have to pull their weight around the university and department. If nobody takes their classes or they aren't bringing in research dollars, that would be a problem that would be brought up in their performance appraisals. The vast majority of tenured professors make about 1/2 to 1/4 of what their value is in industry, and at research institutions most work 60+ hours per week. On average, I work far harder now than I did as a PhD student or when I was in industry. An interesting alternative tenure are renewable five year contracts, which are used at some teaching universities and some prestigious research institutes. About a year before the contract expires, a professor at these places has to document their successes and convince the institute to renew their contract. The idea is that a professor basically would be "going up for tenure" every five years (but not receiving it, just getting their contract renewed for 5 more years). If they start getting lazy, their contracts don't need to be renewed. Going up for tenure requires putting together about 100-200 pages of documentation describing your research, pedagogy, service, etc.

oh_sigh 9y ago
What impacts can performance appraisals have on a tenured professor? Is it possible to be fired or have your salary severely cut simply from poor performance?
- ams6110 9y ago
  Almost never. You'll get fired if you sexually harass a student, but not for performance in the classroom.
- justiazlid88881 9y ago
  As a tenured professor I can say something about that. The short answer is, I don't really know the limits and don't want to know. They can basically freeze your salary and not increase it, which over time can amount to a lot. I have heard of salary cuts in rumor, but nothing firm. Basically they can make your life a complete living hell, which is more unpleasant than it sounds. At my university, I've noticed a trend where they have been increasing the number of bullshit rules; it seems like what they're doing is increasing the reasons they can have for firing people, in a kind of HR mindset. Importantly, though, at my department, I can't think of anyone who's just a slacker. They're just not there. The weird thing is that some people who have reliably brought in grant money I think do poor actual research--they are funded because the areas sound important, much like terrorism or threats to children are always a good way of sidestepping political criticism. Conversely, some who have been poor at grant funding have been insanely cited. And then there are people who do neither, but who are powerhouse teachers. To be honest, what constitutes "poor performance" is at the crux of a lot of issues. Increasingly, this means one thing, which is bringing in grants so universities can siphon off money in the form of "indirect costs." However, with concerns about replicability in science, is that really the right goal? I mean, if you need the money to fund your research, fine, but what if you don't? Should you still be obligated to search for money you don't need and the agencies know you don't need, just so universities can take a cut? The whole thing is a mess. As someone wanting out of academics but without a clear route to that, I've tried to think honestly about this, and I think getting rid of tenure would only make things worse. To some extent, med schools have gotten rid of tenure (if in practice if not on paper), and here we are, with the replicability crisis. The whole point of tenure is to avoid problems like the replication crisis. Academic politics is cutthroat, and tenure is about the only thing that makes the whole thing worth it. It's not even a risk-aversion issue, it just seems like a common-sense thing if you're in the middle of it. The only thing I can think of that's comparable is SCOTUS--I've realized that my problem with that isn't the lifetime appointments that protect from political crap somewhat, it's the fact that the bar for appointment isn't high enough. Really, I'm not feeling the prestige of being a professor, even though I'm at a large research university. To me, it feels like I'm a vilified class, sort of like a lawyer. One thing that I am puzzled by as a professor is how this idea came about that the value of a university education is in the classroom. To me, this makes no sense. If I were to give an incoming student advice about how to make the most of their education, I would say: get involved with research. Find faculty you can get to know and work one-on-one with. That's what you are getting out of it. To be honest, I'd love to do MOOCs and whatnot, as it makes a lot of sense to me, more sense than a lecture course. But in the end, I think it's the small, one-on-one attention that's really where the heart of a university education should be. I have a lot to say about this all, but it's difficult to put in words. People tend to oversimplify a lot of things about problems in academics, but the near future seems very bleak to me in a number of areas--not just academics but also business, tech, health care--as power becomes increasingly concentrated in an administrative elite. Increasingly I feel treated as a widget-maker, like administration expects everyone to conform to some dean's stereotyped wet dream of what a tenured STEM professor should look like. My rough recommendations for solving the academic crisis, at least in the US: * states, or someone, starts funding universities again at pre-1990s levels (or be at peace with no public unis anymore) * administration serves faculty, not the other way around * federal grants eliminate indirect costs (like a lot of private grants), or at least don't allow facility costs that aren't explicitly justified (to the GOP's credit, they proposed that and there was massive pushback, which was unfortunate) * solve problems with the health care system * businesses take responsibility for vetting and training employees--don't push that responsibility onto universities, and recognize people can grow * students need to see university educations as something they participate in, not consume. My inkling is that academic problems aren't really so different from problems in many other areas. It's the same old-same old: they're becoming increasingly politicized, increasingly hierarchically structured with an administrative elite controlling everyone else, people don't want to pay for anything because they themselves don't have the money, etc. etc. etc.
bllguo 9y ago
Hmm, on the other hand it seems like a waste of time for professors to have to compile 100-200 page reports like that. Surely there are simpler heuristics for identifying egregiously lazy profs
ams6110 9y ago
As a university staff employee, I've seen very little indication that anyone is ever let go on the basis of performance. They might get shifted off the upward track, but they will rarely get a pay cut and almost never get fired.
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>The vast majority of tenured professors make about 1/2 to 1/4 of what their value is in industry, and at research institutions most work 60+ hours per week. On average, I work far harder now than I did as a PhD student or when I was in industry. You should probably join an academic unionization movement.

sir_kin 9y ago

The purpose of universities is twofold: to educate and to produce new knowledge. You seem to have the mindset that most of a professor's work should be teaching-related. People don't do PhDs because they want to teach, they do it because they love their field. And a professor's status (and funding!) depends on a history of producing high quality (and quantity) research, not their teaching prowess.

sevensor 9y ago
Mind your generalizations there. I stated a PhD program because I wanted to do something about the poor preparation of my colleagues. I wanted to teach. But I learned to my chagrin that that's not what gets you hired, nor is it what gets you tenure. So I left academia once I got my degree. I don't think it's even true of all those who remain that they're there because they love research. Some of them are like me, but with more perseverence. Swimming against the tide, trying to teach.
stale2002 9y ago
That's great that PHDs are good at research, and engage in that. But personally, I want to be taught by a professional teacher who specializes in teaching and isn't spending any of their valuable time doing research. Researchers should research and teachers should teach. It makes no sense to me that researchers, who do not enjoy teaching and would rather be researching, are forced to teach.
wbillingsley 9y ago
> People don't do PhDs because they want to teach, they do it because they love their field. And a professor's status (and funding!) depends on a history of producing high quality (and quantity) research, not their teaching prowess. Actually that's not quite true. Most continuing academics in Australia are "40/40/20" teaching/research/service. So at least on-paper, the teaching is on an equal footing with the research. In practice, universities tend to specialise. Research groups in the university's focus areas will in addition have a large number of post-docs, research fellows, and other non-teaching staff, balancing that research area far more towards research. And the academics leading those grants will point to the grant money they are bringing in and get a lot of "teaching relief" so they can focus on it. And yes, they'll tend to get promoted faster. However, this also means that some of the other academics in that area (and in all the other fields that go to supporting it) end up having to focus more strongly on the teaching, to make this work. While you can locally optimise yourself if you're keener on research than teaching, most schools receive more of their money from teaching than from research, and it is also the teaching that produces the future PhD and post-docs to fuel the research, so overall they still have to retain a delicate balance between research and teaching.

rifung 9y ago

Isn't research a large part of what universities are for though? I don't want to argue that tenure is the best system but it exists for a reason: so that those who have proved themselves can pursue research which is longer term and carries more risk. I don't think it makes sense to get rid of it without a proper replacement. University is pretty much the only place where people can do truly long term research. The only exception I can think of is Microsoft Research and, besides being only limited to CS, I believe they've recently taken a turn to trying to align more with products.

munin 9y ago
You can't even do long term work at a university because you still need the funds for your employees / lab / equipment / materials / subjects. The university doesn't give you those funds, they only pay your salary, when you're tenured, so if you have tenure but no grant funding, it's just you in an office with a blackboard. Sometimes that is enough (like in pure math) but there are lots of pursuits that are completely ruled out by the absence of additional funding.
stale2002 9y ago
Research is fine. But it should be funded by the government, and NOT by student tuition. Researchers should be spending 100% of their time researching. And teachers should be spending 100% of their time teaching. It makes no sense to me that researchers, who don't want to be teaching, are instead forced to teach.