4 ms·

Naive question: why can't they just have more tenure positions?

by SomewhatLikely 8y ago

jjoonathan 8y ago
Money.
buboard 8y ago
Then they 'd have to enroll more students.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Or stop one-upping each other by building ever more expensive sports facilities?
  - sgillen 8y ago
    Schools that don’t do this still have the same money problems.
  - fhbdukfrh 8y ago
    You're referring to MIT's championship football team?
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      I'm referring to all the times I've heard on HN that US universities one-up each other in building sports facilities.
      - nine_k 8y ago
        I heard sport facilities are actually a source of profit for the universities?
rococode 8y ago
It sounds like his pay as a "professor, post-tenure" was reduced to 49% of what it was before, so it's almost certainly a money problem.
- abcdcba 8y ago
  I mean a school like MIT must be able to afford opening more tenured spots, right?
  - sjg007 8y ago
    You do get some growth by increasing the number of students you have and if research budgets expand but I'm guessing that is a function of inflation and population growth. Technology also allows you to teach more students with less faculty input so maybe you get productivity gains there.
- iguy 8y ago
  But these post-tenure 49% positions are the new thing to encourage people to go -- the previous option was emeritus, not only 0% but also unable to be the PI on grants etc. So they must have found a magic money tree somewhere to pay for them. Not mentioned yet is the change from defined benefit pensions. If you had a final-salary pension, then there was no financial incentive not to go emeritus, in the good old days. Whereas on a defined-contribution scheme, retiring a year earlier does literally cost you (or your estate) a year's salary.
  - nine_k 8y ago
    Large and famous universities sit on very large piles of money. They just choose to invest them differently — or maybe the monies are granted on particular conditions to spend them.
devoply 8y ago
need more management: https://sandiegofreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/MSMFreePress_raw_illus_04.jpg https://sandiegofreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/MSM... https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BJ720_NONCLA_G_20121228180025.jpg https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BJ720_NONCLA_G...
bsder 8y ago
It doesn't matter--the number of PhDs is an order of magnitude larger than the number of tenure positions opening. MIT graduates about 400 PhDs per year and only has about 40-50 tenured positions open each year. I suspect every other program is similar. There are simply too many PhDs being graduated, but the universities are dependent upon them for slave labor.

Naive question: why can't they just have more tenure positions?

jjoonathan 8y ago

Money.

buboard 8y ago

Then they 'd have to enroll more students.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Or stop one-upping each other by building ever more expensive sports facilities?
- sgillen 8y ago
  Schools that don’t do this still have the same money problems.
- fhbdukfrh 8y ago
  You're referring to MIT's championship football team?
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    I'm referring to all the times I've heard on HN that US universities one-up each other in building sports facilities.
    - nine_k 8y ago
      I heard sport facilities are actually a source of profit for the universities?

rococode 8y ago

It sounds like his pay as a "professor, post-tenure" was reduced to 49% of what it was before, so it's almost certainly a money problem.

abcdcba 8y ago
I mean a school like MIT must be able to afford opening more tenured spots, right?
- sjg007 8y ago
  You do get some growth by increasing the number of students you have and if research budgets expand but I'm guessing that is a function of inflation and population growth. Technology also allows you to teach more students with less faculty input so maybe you get productivity gains there.
iguy 8y ago
But these post-tenure 49% positions are the new thing to encourage people to go -- the previous option was emeritus, not only 0% but also unable to be the PI on grants etc. So they must have found a magic money tree somewhere to pay for them. Not mentioned yet is the change from defined benefit pensions. If you had a final-salary pension, then there was no financial incentive not to go emeritus, in the good old days. Whereas on a defined-contribution scheme, retiring a year earlier does literally cost you (or your estate) a year's salary.
- nine_k 8y ago
  Large and famous universities sit on very large piles of money. They just choose to invest them differently — or maybe the monies are granted on particular conditions to spend them.

devoply 8y ago

need more management: https://sandiegofreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/MSMFreePress_raw_illus_04.jpg https://sandiegofreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/MSM... https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BJ720_NONCLA_G_20121228180025.jpg https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BJ720_NONCLA_G...

bsder 8y ago

It doesn't matter--the number of PhDs is an order of magnitude larger than the number of tenure positions opening. MIT graduates about 400 PhDs per year and only has about 40-50 tenured positions open each year. I suspect every other program is similar. There are simply too many PhDs being graduated, but the universities are dependent upon them for slave labor.