3 ms·

> "I am at level X, I can dial it back" I am 100% certain that this rug is going to be pulled out from under any academic who is currently under the age of 45

> "I am at level X, I can dial it back" I am 100% certain that this rug is going to be pulled out from under any academic who is currently under the age of 45 or so. Tenure and seniority aren't going to mean much when budgets are tight and the admin is run by professional managers instead of senior-academics-on-admin-rotation. Painful for anyone who's currently an Asst or Assoc Prof and was planning on retiring-in-place in academia, but I think it's a net good for academic culture in the long term.

gnicholas 4y ago
Isn't a lot of the increase in costs coming from the admin side, where folks are easier to lay off? My understanding (married to an academic) is that it's pretty difficult to get rid of tenured folks, and much easier to eliminate admin positions. And in some cases, the admins make a lot of money, even in comparison to the professors.
- thwayunion 4y ago
  > My understanding (married to an academic) is that it's pretty difficult to get rid of tenured folks This depends on the type of institution, but it's mostly a shared fiction on the order of "corporate culture". Ie, The sort of fiction that no leader dares to undermine when times are good but which goes out the window as soon as revenues start declining and cuts must happen. At many institutions, there are no actual legal or contractual barriers to dismissing tenured faculty. Tenure is nothing more or less than a gentleperson's agreement. A social expectation. Even where actual legal/contractual protection does exist, it typically protects the person's job but not the job itself. Ie, a university might not be able to fire a tenured professor and hire a new professor. But they can simply downsize the academic department and release the faculty member by virtue of the faculty position no longer existing. Maybe hire back ad junct labor a few semesters later if necessary. > much easier to eliminate admin positions. This largely depends on what you mean by "admin". Typically the split is between "staff" and "faculty". The explosion of "staff" is not (just) a story of bloated middle management. It's also a story of the ongoing move from tenured to untenured labor. In particular: "staff" often includes people like instructors, ad junct teaching labor, research scientists, and post-docs. Why would you fire an ad junct instructor or research scientist (staff) if they are cheaper than a professor (faculty) for roughly the same work? In fact, a savvy financial engineer might even prefer the more contingent form of labor even though they are more expensive because a friction of releasing traditional faculty is expensive in terms of opportunity cost and agility.
  - gnicholas 4y ago
    > At many institutions, there are no actual legal or contractual barriers to dismissing tenured faculty. Tenure is nothing more or less than a gentleperson's agreement. A social expectation. What are some institutions where this is true? Are we talking 10% of institutions, or a more substantial number? I've read about many dismissals that were challenged, and I've never heard the institution defend itself on the grounds that tenure isn't actually guaranteed, but is just a social expectation.
    - thwayunion 4y ago
      Certainly the minority, but a large one. > I've read about many dismissals that were challenged, and I've never heard the institution defend itself on the grounds that tenure isn't actually guaranteed, but is just a social expectation. Lots of colleges and universities have done layoffs and cut academic programs. They don't even say it's a social expectation, they just say they're laying off faculty and leave it at that, no explanation required. I've never actually heard of a role reduction successfully challenged. The usual cases that get contested are firing for cause, not layoffs. Also: note that even the AAUP allows universities to lay off tenured faculty. They just insist that the non-tenured faculty get axed first. Labor solidarity n'at.

gnicholas 4y ago

Isn't a lot of the increase in costs coming from the admin side, where folks are easier to lay off? My understanding (married to an academic) is that it's pretty difficult to get rid of tenured folks, and much easier to eliminate admin positions. And in some cases, the admins make a lot of money, even in comparison to the professors.

thwayunion 4y ago
> My understanding (married to an academic) is that it's pretty difficult to get rid of tenured folks This depends on the type of institution, but it's mostly a shared fiction on the order of "corporate culture". Ie, The sort of fiction that no leader dares to undermine when times are good but which goes out the window as soon as revenues start declining and cuts must happen. At many institutions, there are no actual legal or contractual barriers to dismissing tenured faculty. Tenure is nothing more or less than a gentleperson's agreement. A social expectation. Even where actual legal/contractual protection does exist, it typically protects the person's job but not the job itself. Ie, a university might not be able to fire a tenured professor and hire a new professor. But they can simply downsize the academic department and release the faculty member by virtue of the faculty position no longer existing. Maybe hire back ad junct labor a few semesters later if necessary. > much easier to eliminate admin positions. This largely depends on what you mean by "admin". Typically the split is between "staff" and "faculty". The explosion of "staff" is not (just) a story of bloated middle management. It's also a story of the ongoing move from tenured to untenured labor. In particular: "staff" often includes people like instructors, ad junct teaching labor, research scientists, and post-docs. Why would you fire an ad junct instructor or research scientist (staff) if they are cheaper than a professor (faculty) for roughly the same work? In fact, a savvy financial engineer might even prefer the more contingent form of labor even though they are more expensive because a friction of releasing traditional faculty is expensive in terms of opportunity cost and agility.
- gnicholas 4y ago
  > At many institutions, there are no actual legal or contractual barriers to dismissing tenured faculty. Tenure is nothing more or less than a gentleperson's agreement. A social expectation. What are some institutions where this is true? Are we talking 10% of institutions, or a more substantial number? I've read about many dismissals that were challenged, and I've never heard the institution defend itself on the grounds that tenure isn't actually guaranteed, but is just a social expectation.
  - thwayunion 4y ago
    Certainly the minority, but a large one. > I've read about many dismissals that were challenged, and I've never heard the institution defend itself on the grounds that tenure isn't actually guaranteed, but is just a social expectation. Lots of colleges and universities have done layoffs and cut academic programs. They don't even say it's a social expectation, they just say they're laying off faculty and leave it at that, no explanation required. I've never actually heard of a role reduction successfully challenged. The usual cases that get contested are firing for cause, not layoffs. Also: note that even the AAUP allows universities to lay off tenured faculty. They just insist that the non-tenured faculty get axed first. Labor solidarity n'at.