4 ms·

I'm surprised that you seem to think that "slacker"/"non-slacker" is an intrinsic immutable property of a person rather than a situational response to incentive

I'm surprised that you seem to think that "slacker"/"non-slacker" is an intrinsic immutable property of a person rather than a situational response to incentives. I think most critics of tenure would argue that granting life long job security can and does cause "non-slackers" to adopt "slacker" behavior since they no longer have to compete for their job. The fact that someone worked hard to get tenure does not imply that they will continue to be productive when they have no competition.

marketforlemmas 12y ago
I agree with the original point. In my experience, there's such a strong selection process in who even tries to get tenure that most people simply can't turn off their drive because its so fundamentally a part of them. Do they change the shape of their efforts? Sure. They might stop trying to go for many small publications and go for a longer view, try a new subfield, etc. But the base level of effort never really diminishes. Now of course this is not for all universities but I think it applies to almost any R1 university, top teaching college, etc. Its not competition for their job that drives them, its just competition against their self-image, competition against peers for prestige, etc.
Fomite 12y ago
It should also be noted that tenure does not guarantee funding. A tenured faculty member who adopts "slacker" behavior will likely see their lab/group eviscerated, more "service" obligations heaped on them, and their job progressively becoming less fun. Additionally, "tenured"/"non-tenured" is not a single binary switch in terms of prestige. Even with tenure there's things to be striving for.