7 ms·

Not the law yet, but as Scott Aaronson (I'm positive along with others) has pointed out, this would make their universities vastly less attractive to various in

Not the law yet, but as Scott Aaronson (I'm positive along with others) has pointed out, this would make their universities vastly less attractive to various incoming faculty. Whether that would be as impactful in STEM as in the humanities or human-interest areas like law remains to be seen.

whitemary 4y ago
> this would make their universities vastly less attractive to various incoming faculty ...but given the flood state of the academic labor market, still rather attractive.
- michaelhoffman 4y ago
  I doubt they will have much problem finding people who are qualified to teach. But it's going to make it more difficult to continue hiring people who are seen as some of the best in the world in in-demand areas.
  - wlesieutre 4y ago
    But will it affect their football recruiting?
    - whitemary 4y ago
      That is the real question.
  - Beldin 4y ago
    > I doubt they will have much problem finding people who are qualified to teach. There's some ambiguity there. In my experience, it's not necessarily hard to find someone whose credentials match job requirements wrt. teaching. Finding a good teacher for an academic position can be quite hard though.
nextos 4y ago
IMHO, right now, tenure is the only edge Academia has in many areas of STEM compared to industrial labs. Other countries have suppressed tenure in the past, Denmark comes to mind, and this scared tons of great faculty.
- tiedieconderoga 4y ago
  Even with tenure, you would need to be extremely passionate about education or research to go into academia in fields like software or mech/chem/EE. The opportunity cost is easily 6 figures/yr, for your entire career. The hours are long, the pay is laughable, the kids are not alright, you must publish or perish...maybe these universities are intentionally selecting for professors who will have a high tolerance for abuse.
  - nextos 4y ago
    Note some good US universities pay entry-level FAANG salaries to assistant professors. If you can negotiate a low teaching load, it might be OK in some cases. Nonetheless, I agree with what you say. I'd add there is a ton of nasty politics, bullying, etc. which might be hard to avoid while you are on tenure track chasing tenure.
    - beambot 4y ago
      Please give an example of such a university?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - nextos 4y ago
        According to levels.fyi, a typical entry-level FAANG job (L3 SWE at Google) pays $140k base salary. An assistant prof. position at UCSD I was looking into a few weeks ago was paying $115-145k to identical roles in the department. I know Google has some other benefits, like stock and bonus. Plus, compensation will grow more rapidly. And there are tons of high-paying SWE jobs, whereas good academic positions are scarce. In Academia, it's hard to exceed $200k. Some professors often get $200-300k from consulting. But those I know that earn so much on side gigs are frequently gaming university IP rules.
notch898c 4y ago
I would think a top performer would like least the tenure system, as they're in demand but their job outlook stunted by (perhaps numerical minority) crusty elements that can't be supplanted.
- tedivm 4y ago
  The few people I know with tenure are just happy to be out of the academic grind, as it's absolutely brutal. Being tenured also doesn't lock you into a specific university- one of my professors had tenure but took a job elsewhere on a tenure track.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  I would disagree but only, specifically, academia's already broken system. Tenure takes the heat off an academic such that they can deeply, deeply study a system. Academia's still stuck in lines-of-code style measuring sticks of performance so the rush to tenure is often pumping out salami slices worth of papers to secure future funds.
  - 542458 4y ago
    The thing that I don’t understand is that: * Academics say publish or perish is terrible and produces warped incentives. * Academics say they need tenure to protect senior researchers from the publish or perish system. * But academics seem to be the ones building grant and advancement systems that enforce “publish or perish”. I don’t get it - it certainly sounds like tenure mostly protects senior academics from systems they built themselves. If publish or perish is so bad why don’t senior members of departments build advancement opportunities that don’t rely on impact factor? Cynically, it almost feels like tenure is enforcing publish or perish, because those with tenure set the rules and the current system protects those who are tenured. Furthermore, I don’t see why the sort of “deep study” research that the idealized tenured researcher does would need special protection. If the researcher has a track record of success surely the department would tolerate a brief lull in publications while they work on their Magnum Opus? Private industry frequently does multi-year deep research projects without the need for tenure systems.
fmajid 4y ago
And even tenured UT or A&M professors will seek to move out to tenured positions elsewhere because no one wants to go down with a sinking ship. This is a singularly bad idea as Texas had successfully transitioned from being a resource extraction economy to a technology and medical one.

whitemary 4y ago

> this would make their universities vastly less attractive to various incoming faculty ...but given the flood state of the academic labor market, still rather attractive.

michaelhoffman 4y ago
I doubt they will have much problem finding people who are qualified to teach. But it's going to make it more difficult to continue hiring people who are seen as some of the best in the world in in-demand areas.
- wlesieutre 4y ago
  But will it affect their football recruiting?
  - whitemary 4y ago
    That is the real question.
- Beldin 4y ago
  > I doubt they will have much problem finding people who are qualified to teach. There's some ambiguity there. In my experience, it's not necessarily hard to find someone whose credentials match job requirements wrt. teaching. Finding a good teacher for an academic position can be quite hard though.

nextos 4y ago

IMHO, right now, tenure is the only edge Academia has in many areas of STEM compared to industrial labs. Other countries have suppressed tenure in the past, Denmark comes to mind, and this scared tons of great faculty.

tiedieconderoga 4y ago
Even with tenure, you would need to be extremely passionate about education or research to go into academia in fields like software or mech/chem/EE. The opportunity cost is easily 6 figures/yr, for your entire career. The hours are long, the pay is laughable, the kids are not alright, you must publish or perish...maybe these universities are intentionally selecting for professors who will have a high tolerance for abuse.
- nextos 4y ago
  Note some good US universities pay entry-level FAANG salaries to assistant professors. If you can negotiate a low teaching load, it might be OK in some cases. Nonetheless, I agree with what you say. I'd add there is a ton of nasty politics, bullying, etc. which might be hard to avoid while you are on tenure track chasing tenure.
  - beambot 4y ago
    Please give an example of such a university?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - nextos 4y ago
      According to levels.fyi, a typical entry-level FAANG job (L3 SWE at Google) pays $140k base salary. An assistant prof. position at UCSD I was looking into a few weeks ago was paying $115-145k to identical roles in the department. I know Google has some other benefits, like stock and bonus. Plus, compensation will grow more rapidly. And there are tons of high-paying SWE jobs, whereas good academic positions are scarce. In Academia, it's hard to exceed $200k. Some professors often get $200-300k from consulting. But those I know that earn so much on side gigs are frequently gaming university IP rules.

notch898c 4y ago

I would think a top performer would like least the tenure system, as they're in demand but their job outlook stunted by (perhaps numerical minority) crusty elements that can't be supplanted.

tedivm 4y ago
The few people I know with tenure are just happy to be out of the academic grind, as it's absolutely brutal. Being tenured also doesn't lock you into a specific university- one of my professors had tenure but took a job elsewhere on a tenure track.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
I would disagree but only, specifically, academia's already broken system. Tenure takes the heat off an academic such that they can deeply, deeply study a system. Academia's still stuck in lines-of-code style measuring sticks of performance so the rush to tenure is often pumping out salami slices worth of papers to secure future funds.
- 542458 4y ago
  The thing that I don’t understand is that: * Academics say publish or perish is terrible and produces warped incentives. * Academics say they need tenure to protect senior researchers from the publish or perish system. * But academics seem to be the ones building grant and advancement systems that enforce “publish or perish”. I don’t get it - it certainly sounds like tenure mostly protects senior academics from systems they built themselves. If publish or perish is so bad why don’t senior members of departments build advancement opportunities that don’t rely on impact factor? Cynically, it almost feels like tenure is enforcing publish or perish, because those with tenure set the rules and the current system protects those who are tenured. Furthermore, I don’t see why the sort of “deep study” research that the idealized tenured researcher does would need special protection. If the researcher has a track record of success surely the department would tolerate a brief lull in publications while they work on their Magnum Opus? Private industry frequently does multi-year deep research projects without the need for tenure systems.

fmajid 4y ago

And even tenured UT or A&M professors will seek to move out to tenured positions elsewhere because no one wants to go down with a sinking ship. This is a singularly bad idea as Texas had successfully transitioned from being a resource extraction economy to a technology and medical one.