5 ms·

My impression of (tenured) academics is a lot like my impression of Microsoft: they're making out like bandits in the short-term, while seriously head-in-sand a

My impression of (tenured) academics is a lot like my impression of Microsoft: they're making out like bandits in the short-term, while seriously head-in-sand about fundamental changes necessary to tackle the long-term.

slurry 13y ago
In the short term the pay is not so great and getting worse, in the long term they still can't get fired. Your analogy does not work. Unless you are talking about their administrators. In which case yes, quite a bit like Microsoft.
zainny 13y ago
I don't think "making out like bandits" is accurate at all. Tenured academics don't seem like they make all that much money and I think most would make more in corporate.
grovulent 13y ago
This comment sounds flippant - but it has some truth... I've had a lot of experience with many academics from many different disciplines, from science to media studies, to philosophy. The sense in which they are 'making out like bandits' in the short term is simply the kind of isolated freedom that tenured academics have been able to enjoy for so long. They only have to talk to one another and get the esteem of their most immediate peers - but beyond that the world leaves them alone. The sense in which they have their head in the sand is that the world is increasingly asking them to justify their existence more and more - which is forcing academics to engage in various ways more with the external world. And naturally, they don't enjoy doing this. But rather than bite the bullet and tackle full on the problem of demonstrating their value - they just become somewhat histrionic at the suggestion that they have to justify themselves... and in the end - and this is the important bit - FAIL to deliver a coherent defense. And before you say it: "Academics need to be left alone to their own devices otherwise you won't get innovations borne of long terms motivation and incomprehensible (to the common folk) abstract thinking." This doesn't help - even if true. Because what is needed is a cost-benefit analysis of all the wasted resources going into the research community as a result of tenured academic life vs the the innovations that this system alone could produce. I for one have no idea how to a) identify the innovations the definitively WOULDN'T have been generated by an alternative system, nor do I - b) know how to measure the costs. However, the one group of people that probably are smart enough to figure out an answer to this are the people who don't want to even consider the question. (If anyone knows of actual research on this question - I'd be very interested).
- aridiculous 13y ago
  "I for one have no idea how to a) identify the innovations the definitively WOULDN'T have been generated by an alternative system, nor do I - b) know how to measure the costs." Exactly. It can't be measured. The situation is political, and the academics are right not to engage in a dialog that uses the language of market economics and 'value'. The private sector market experts are going to want to use their models and supply-demand curves to justify resource allocation to obvious industry-relevant subjects. The academics are going to use history, ethics, etc to defend breadth, freedom, and security of non-obvious inquiry. The faculties need to take back control of the university. They're being bent over a barrel by their administrations.
  - grovulent 13y ago
    Well - I'm not sure I'm as pessimistic as that... But look - if your default position on a topic is X, and it happens to be the case that there is no rational way to explain why you are wrong about X, then you can hardly be blamed for continuing to carry on believing X. So if you're right that there is nothing that can be said on this issue - then the powers that be will just steam-roll academia. How can they even play political? They won't be able to convince anyone to support them! My point is that while my intuition is that academics ARE valuable and should be given large amounts of freedom - still we don't have a choice but to believe that we can find some justification for this. We certainly won't figure it out by being defeatist about it. My position is the only rationale one on this topic - but lordy convincing a single academic of its reason is beyond me. The irony of this is painful.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    If the benefits can't be measured, why are we wasting money on them? I can also give you oodles of unmeasureable and unquantifiable benefits. Just send me a big check and then don't try to box me in with oversight or accountability. (There are of course some measurable benefits from the current system. For example: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=W04 http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=W04 )
    - 13y ago
mathattack 13y ago
The irony is that tenure exists to protect the future from short term politics, since you can't fire truth tellers just because you disagree with them.

slurry 13y ago

In the short term the pay is not so great and getting worse, in the long term they still can't get fired. Your analogy does not work. Unless you are talking about their administrators. In which case yes, quite a bit like Microsoft.

zainny 13y ago

I don't think "making out like bandits" is accurate at all. Tenured academics don't seem like they make all that much money and I think most would make more in corporate.

grovulent 13y ago

This comment sounds flippant - but it has some truth... I've had a lot of experience with many academics from many different disciplines, from science to media studies, to philosophy. The sense in which they are 'making out like bandits' in the short term is simply the kind of isolated freedom that tenured academics have been able to enjoy for so long. They only have to talk to one another and get the esteem of their most immediate peers - but beyond that the world leaves them alone. The sense in which they have their head in the sand is that the world is increasingly asking them to justify their existence more and more - which is forcing academics to engage in various ways more with the external world. And naturally, they don't enjoy doing this. But rather than bite the bullet and tackle full on the problem of demonstrating their value - they just become somewhat histrionic at the suggestion that they have to justify themselves... and in the end - and this is the important bit - FAIL to deliver a coherent defense. And before you say it: "Academics need to be left alone to their own devices otherwise you won't get innovations borne of long terms motivation and incomprehensible (to the common folk) abstract thinking." This doesn't help - even if true. Because what is needed is a cost-benefit analysis of all the wasted resources going into the research community as a result of tenured academic life vs the the innovations that this system alone could produce. I for one have no idea how to a) identify the innovations the definitively WOULDN'T have been generated by an alternative system, nor do I - b) know how to measure the costs. However, the one group of people that probably are smart enough to figure out an answer to this are the people who don't want to even consider the question. (If anyone knows of actual research on this question - I'd be very interested).

aridiculous 13y ago
"I for one have no idea how to a) identify the innovations the definitively WOULDN'T have been generated by an alternative system, nor do I - b) know how to measure the costs." Exactly. It can't be measured. The situation is political, and the academics are right not to engage in a dialog that uses the language of market economics and 'value'. The private sector market experts are going to want to use their models and supply-demand curves to justify resource allocation to obvious industry-relevant subjects. The academics are going to use history, ethics, etc to defend breadth, freedom, and security of non-obvious inquiry. The faculties need to take back control of the university. They're being bent over a barrel by their administrations.
- grovulent 13y ago
  Well - I'm not sure I'm as pessimistic as that... But look - if your default position on a topic is X, and it happens to be the case that there is no rational way to explain why you are wrong about X, then you can hardly be blamed for continuing to carry on believing X. So if you're right that there is nothing that can be said on this issue - then the powers that be will just steam-roll academia. How can they even play political? They won't be able to convince anyone to support them! My point is that while my intuition is that academics ARE valuable and should be given large amounts of freedom - still we don't have a choice but to believe that we can find some justification for this. We certainly won't figure it out by being defeatist about it. My position is the only rationale one on this topic - but lordy convincing a single academic of its reason is beyond me. The irony of this is painful.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  If the benefits can't be measured, why are we wasting money on them? I can also give you oodles of unmeasureable and unquantifiable benefits. Just send me a big check and then don't try to box me in with oversight or accountability. (There are of course some measurable benefits from the current system. For example: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=W04 http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=W04 )
  - 13y ago

mathattack 13y ago

The irony is that tenure exists to protect the future from short term politics, since you can't fire truth tellers just because you disagree with them.