3 ms·
Here is how I look at it. Major universities have two functions: (1) teaching and (2) research. Teaching is further split between (1a) undergrad (basic) and (1
by Cyph0n 4y ago
Here is how I look at it.
Major universities have two functions: (1) teaching and (2) research. Teaching is further split between (1a) undergrad (basic) and (1b) graduate (advanced).
You could definitely sustain (1a) without the incentive (or carrot) of tenure. This is how most community colleges work.
(1b) and (2) currently rely on the existence of tenure. Teaching advanced courses (1b) requires research experience. Finding people willing to spend their lives in research (2) requires some kind of incentive, especially in STEM fields.
As others have mentioned, to eliminate tenure, you need to provide an equivalent incentive. If you don’t, you’ll end up with a race to the bottom and a very probable exodus of academics to either other states or - even worse - other countries.
- romwell 4y ago>You could definitely sustain (1a) without the incentive (or carrot) of tenure. This is how most community colleges work. Spoiler: this is how most universities work. They have teaching jobs that are either filled with adjuncts, or are contract-based; or pay such small salaries that tenure is the only thing that would attract anyone to work them.
- Cyph0n 4y agoYou’re missing my point. Universities that also do research cannot be sustained completely by adjuncts and teaching professors. Also, a portion of adjunct and contract-based positions are filled by those seeking a tenure track position. Removing tenure will affect this side as well.
- romwell 4y agoNo, I'm not missing your point - I agree with it. My comment was meant to point that that to the extent that tenure could be gutted from research universities, it has already been done so. Gutting it further would bring immediate ruin.