4 ms·

Tenure is a thing of the past in low-industry-demand fields (e.g., the humanities and some life sciences). Nearly all full-time jobs are instructor or ad junct.

Tenure is a thing of the past in low-industry-demand fields (e.g., the humanities and some life sciences). Nearly all full-time jobs are instructor or ad junct. This has been true for years. In CS and a few other fields (some applied math, biz, econ, finance), tenure is non-optional because universities can't pay. Every single decent candidate in CS can make $300K minimum in industry, but even the absolute best universities cannot afford more than $150K at the asst. prof rank (maybe 200 at the very best but also highest CoL places and even then only for the tippy-top candidates). NB: that's at the very, very best universities. The budget for a tenure line is closer to $65K or so at the vast majority of the country's ~1,400 colleges. If you're competing with a FAANG offer and your budget is $65K, tenure is your only chip to play. And even then you'll be super lucky to get a halfway decent candidate.

zmj 6y ago
Doesn't that select for people who need tenure's security to stay employed? That's.. not great.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  1. Absolutely not. Some people enjoy teaching/research and interacting with students. The "life of the mind". It's true that even people who really enjoy that life are unlikely to take a $100K+ paycut for the lifestyle, but people willing to take that paycut in exchange for security do exist. See also: people who leave SFBA FAANG jobs to take "stable but boring" engineering positions in the south/midwest. Just because you're not on the corporate ladder climbing route doesn't mean you're incompetent. 2. Some people are extremely risk-averse and therefore value stability higher than the typical candidate. Often to a fault. Arguably sometimes not to a fault, though. Do you know how to perfectly price perpetuities or annuities and compare the long-term value of that investment to something more volatile? Because that's basically what this "tenure vs. industry" calculation amounts to. And it's not trivial -- undergrads and even masters students struggle with the math. Point is, most people don't know enough about finance to make rational economic decisions, or even if they do, choose values for parameters in the calculation based on personal anxieties because there's no perfect access to future ground truth. Do all the math and learn what you already knew -- the values of a few parameters determine what you should do. But those parameters are unknown and ultimately instantiated by your particular animal spirits. 3. But most importantly, consider the counter-factual. So what? What's the alternative? Pay better? You're a department chair at a tuition-dependent institution. Your budget is your budget. Paying better isn't an option. The best you can do is offer tenure and do your best to recruit the right type of candidate. But without tenure on the table you'll never recruit a competent candidate. Seriously, what competent person would take a less secure job for $100+K lower salary? So it's "try or die" in some sense. If these alternatives aren't broadly available to every competent candidate -- so basically everything outside of CS and maybe a few other fields -- the dynamics change and you can ad junctify. And universities do ad junctify in those cases. See: the humanities.
notsuoh 6y ago
Via industry I "run" a professor at a top university to direct their research (like partnership I think), on the advice of the board. In exchange I fund many of their students and the professor themself gets a sweet consulting gig with my company at exorbitant rates (and equity) to supplement their income. Not only that, but they almost turned us down, it sounded like they had their pick of industry projects and wanted to only do things that were highly paid in compensation and equity for their work. That is to say, professor salary can be only part of the story.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  Sure, I've also been on both sides of such arrangements. Suffice it to say that they're extremely rare and basically unheard of at the vast majority of the country's 1400 colleges, though.

zmj 6y ago

Doesn't that select for people who need tenure's security to stay employed? That's.. not great.

throwawaygh 6y ago
1. Absolutely not. Some people enjoy teaching/research and interacting with students. The "life of the mind". It's true that even people who really enjoy that life are unlikely to take a $100K+ paycut for the lifestyle, but people willing to take that paycut in exchange for security do exist. See also: people who leave SFBA FAANG jobs to take "stable but boring" engineering positions in the south/midwest. Just because you're not on the corporate ladder climbing route doesn't mean you're incompetent. 2. Some people are extremely risk-averse and therefore value stability higher than the typical candidate. Often to a fault. Arguably sometimes not to a fault, though. Do you know how to perfectly price perpetuities or annuities and compare the long-term value of that investment to something more volatile? Because that's basically what this "tenure vs. industry" calculation amounts to. And it's not trivial -- undergrads and even masters students struggle with the math. Point is, most people don't know enough about finance to make rational economic decisions, or even if they do, choose values for parameters in the calculation based on personal anxieties because there's no perfect access to future ground truth. Do all the math and learn what you already knew -- the values of a few parameters determine what you should do. But those parameters are unknown and ultimately instantiated by your particular animal spirits. 3. But most importantly, consider the counter-factual. So what? What's the alternative? Pay better? You're a department chair at a tuition-dependent institution. Your budget is your budget. Paying better isn't an option. The best you can do is offer tenure and do your best to recruit the right type of candidate. But without tenure on the table you'll never recruit a competent candidate. Seriously, what competent person would take a less secure job for $100+K lower salary? So it's "try or die" in some sense. If these alternatives aren't broadly available to every competent candidate -- so basically everything outside of CS and maybe a few other fields -- the dynamics change and you can ad junctify. And universities do ad junctify in those cases. See: the humanities.

notsuoh 6y ago

Via industry I "run" a professor at a top university to direct their research (like partnership I think), on the advice of the board. In exchange I fund many of their students and the professor themself gets a sweet consulting gig with my company at exorbitant rates (and equity) to supplement their income. Not only that, but they almost turned us down, it sounded like they had their pick of industry projects and wanted to only do things that were highly paid in compensation and equity for their work. That is to say, professor salary can be only part of the story.

throwawaygh 6y ago
Sure, I've also been on both sides of such arrangements. Suffice it to say that they're extremely rare and basically unheard of at the vast majority of the country's 1400 colleges, though.