3 ms·

If tenure goes away, then you have to pay more to compensate. If you're getting rid of tenure while keeping wages low, you'll still have bad teachers but for th

If tenure goes away, then you have to pay more to compensate. If you're getting rid of tenure while keeping wages low, you'll still have bad teachers but for that reason instead. A lot of people want to have their cake and eat it too: No tenure AND low wages. It won't work out.

fn-mote 4y ago
> A lot of people want to have their cake and eat it too: No tenure AND low wages. It won't work out. Sure you can. That's what the current system of adjuncts is like. The problem is that you lose the people who are the most competent. Those who know what they are doing, have valuable skills, etc.
- uberman 4y ago
  Adjuncts and lecturers dont do research nor do they typically do service. If one wanted to be educated by lecturers then they could attend a community college. That is of course a viable option but no tenure will be the kiss of death to any institution who thought they were going to do research at the R1 level.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "If one wanted to be educated by lecturers then they could attend a community college." I'd argue that the vast majority of classes at a state school (what this rule affects) are already taught by non-research personnel.
    - gammarator 4y ago
      Correct. But universities want researchers because they bring in research grants (which provide the university 50%+ in overhead: slush funds).
      - giantg2 4y ago
        It seems the state schools don't have as much incentive for that. The university president decided to build a conference center while I was at school. They didn't have all the money secured, so the state jumped in to pay a lot and tuition. Went up substantially. They're already cheap so the have no competition pressure and they know the state will bail them out.
- gammarator 4y ago
  My own hypothesis is that many adjuncts work under such poor conditions due to an irrational belief that it will lead to a tenure track position some day. Without that carrot the whole market destabilizes. Tenure is the key incentive in the academic tournament model. Other fields that do “out or up” (consulting, Big Law) offer major $$$ to the winners.
  - musicale 4y ago
    I think this may actually be good for adjuncts, since the imaginary tenure possibility you describe can no longer trick them into accepting lower pay. Adjunct salaries might have to rise, would make UT more attractive to adjuncts.
- romwell 4y ago
  >> A lot of people want to have their cake and eat it too: No tenure AND low wages. It won't work out. Sure you can. That's what the current system of adjuncts is like. >The problem is that you lose the people who are the most competent. Those who know what they are doing, have valuable skills, etc. So, you can have your cake and eat it too... provided that the cake is half-off because it's not competitive. Which is what Scott Aaronson said.

fn-mote 4y ago

> A lot of people want to have their cake and eat it too: No tenure AND low wages. It won't work out. Sure you can. That's what the current system of adjuncts is like. The problem is that you lose the people who are the most competent. Those who know what they are doing, have valuable skills, etc.

uberman 4y ago
Adjuncts and lecturers dont do research nor do they typically do service. If one wanted to be educated by lecturers then they could attend a community college. That is of course a viable option but no tenure will be the kiss of death to any institution who thought they were going to do research at the R1 level.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "If one wanted to be educated by lecturers then they could attend a community college." I'd argue that the vast majority of classes at a state school (what this rule affects) are already taught by non-research personnel.
  - gammarator 4y ago
    Correct. But universities want researchers because they bring in research grants (which provide the university 50%+ in overhead: slush funds).
    - giantg2 4y ago
      It seems the state schools don't have as much incentive for that. The university president decided to build a conference center while I was at school. They didn't have all the money secured, so the state jumped in to pay a lot and tuition. Went up substantially. They're already cheap so the have no competition pressure and they know the state will bail them out.
gammarator 4y ago
My own hypothesis is that many adjuncts work under such poor conditions due to an irrational belief that it will lead to a tenure track position some day. Without that carrot the whole market destabilizes. Tenure is the key incentive in the academic tournament model. Other fields that do “out or up” (consulting, Big Law) offer major $$$ to the winners.
- musicale 4y ago
  I think this may actually be good for adjuncts, since the imaginary tenure possibility you describe can no longer trick them into accepting lower pay. Adjunct salaries might have to rise, would make UT more attractive to adjuncts.
romwell 4y ago
>> A lot of people want to have their cake and eat it too: No tenure AND low wages. It won't work out. Sure you can. That's what the current system of adjuncts is like. >The problem is that you lose the people who are the most competent. Those who know what they are doing, have valuable skills, etc. So, you can have your cake and eat it too... provided that the cake is half-off because it's not competitive. Which is what Scott Aaronson said.