3 ms·

On the other hand, without the tenure carrot, how could you possibly persuade a smart, successful individual in his thirties to pack up his life and move to, sa

by hugh3 16y ago

On the other hand, without the tenure carrot, how could you possibly persuade a smart, successful individual in his thirties to pack up his life and move to, say, Urbana-Champaign or College Park, TX? The biggest problem with the academic job market is how spread out it is; while other professions usually have a choice of dozens of employers in any metropolitan area, very few cities have more than a couple of universities. Tenure is a fantastic perk, and if it didn't exist, academic salaries would have to be a helluva lot higher. Now, tenure for schoolteachers, that's crazy.

tptacek 16y ago
My read of this article is that it's not the problem that some teachers get this perk. Instead, it's the fact that the system that results from this culls out huge amounts of talent, (a) because few people will risk 15 years of their life on a career that is more likely to unceremoniusly eject than to reward them, and (b) because there will never be nearly enough openings for tenured professors to make use of all the talent vying for those roles. As always, it's not that the perk is bad, it's that it comes at cost disproportionate to its value.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Right. But I'm not sure how abolishing tenure would help with this. Sure, you could throw professors out onto the street once they reach fifty and make 'em find new jobs as Walmart greeters, but that's not a great solution. What really needs to be addressed is the vast pyramiding of talent between the PhD and the tenure-track level (I'm talking about sciences, not humanities, which have other problems). The current system of postdocs sitting in a long-term holding pattern until they either get picked for a permanent position or give up doesn't actually reward talent, it mostly just rewards patience, being independently wealthy, or having nothing better to do. A young scientist's level of talent should be apparent by the time you finish your PhD -- let the universities snap 'em up for tenure-track positions then, instead of six years later. (Why yes, I am a fifth-year postdoc, thanks for asking.)
  - api 16y ago
    Here's a better idea: let new Ph.D graduates go into industry, and treat their time solving real world problems in industry as their postdoc. Then, when/if they go into academic tenure-track positions, they'll have more experience to draw upon to do more fruitful and valuable research.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    By creating a more uniform, easily-accessible, and equitable marketplace for academic talent, where access to scholarly positions didn't require a lifetime committment. Consider: I could conceivably become an MD at this point in my life, but stand zero chance of becoming a professor of English. This seems warped.

by hugh3 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

My read of this article is that it's not the problem that some teachers get this perk. Instead, it's the fact that the system that results from this culls out huge amounts of talent, (a) because few people will risk 15 years of their life on a career that is more likely to unceremoniusly eject than to reward them, and (b) because there will never be nearly enough openings for tenured professors to make use of all the talent vying for those roles. As always, it's not that the perk is bad, it's that it comes at cost disproportionate to its value.

hugh3 16y ago
Right. But I'm not sure how abolishing tenure would help with this. Sure, you could throw professors out onto the street once they reach fifty and make 'em find new jobs as Walmart greeters, but that's not a great solution. What really needs to be addressed is the vast pyramiding of talent between the PhD and the tenure-track level (I'm talking about sciences, not humanities, which have other problems). The current system of postdocs sitting in a long-term holding pattern until they either get picked for a permanent position or give up doesn't actually reward talent, it mostly just rewards patience, being independently wealthy, or having nothing better to do. A young scientist's level of talent should be apparent by the time you finish your PhD -- let the universities snap 'em up for tenure-track positions then, instead of six years later. (Why yes, I am a fifth-year postdoc, thanks for asking.)
- api 16y ago
  Here's a better idea: let new Ph.D graduates go into industry, and treat their time solving real world problems in industry as their postdoc. Then, when/if they go into academic tenure-track positions, they'll have more experience to draw upon to do more fruitful and valuable research.
- tptacek 16y ago
  By creating a more uniform, easily-accessible, and equitable marketplace for academic talent, where access to scholarly positions didn't require a lifetime committment. Consider: I could conceivably become an MD at this point in my life, but stand zero chance of becoming a professor of English. This seems warped.