3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoI mean a school like MIT must be able to afford opening more tenured spots, right?
- sjg007 8y agoYou 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 agoBut 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 agoLarge 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.