Should Academic Tenure continue at the University level?

[Grand Vol]

Simple question really and with POLE!

Give some thoughts to your answer...

 

[Grand Vol]

FYI, the "I like pie!" answer is "I truly DGAF"

 

[volinbham]

Pole? No tenure for you

 

[Grand Vol]

Pole? No tenure for you

Don't hang out in the FF much?

 

[volinbham]

I'm a maybe.

Some background. As it stands now, a typical professor hired on tenure track can only remain employed with the university if granted tenure. In effect, the tenure process is 6 years of probation. Compare that to none tenure track which are typically one year recurring contracts that can run indefinitely. So the tenure giveth and taketh away. Fail to earn tenure and you are canned.

There are legit cases where protecting academic freedom (increasingly important in the PC world of universities) merits the use of a system that makes it difficult to get rid of productive people who are espousing unpopular views (the core reason for tenure).

Clearly there are abuses and instances where non-productive and sometimes problematic people are protected in jobs.

Reform along the lines of revocation of tenure for non-performance and/or bad behavior (that is not related to research or unpopular opinion) would be my recommendation but tenure is probably more important now than ever.

 

[volinbham]

Don't hang out in the FF much?

Nope and now I know why

 

[roosterjbh]

Was a stem PhD student, I saw firsthand a lot of stagnant profs. I think it should be done away with

 

[n_huffhines]

I find tenure problematic at state schools, but private schools can do whatever they want. Tenure shouldn't be some thing you just give to all professors who meet certain requirements...it should be a bargaining chip for keeping talent, nothing more.

 

[LouderVol]

I am saying no. to bhams point about the anti-PC, tenure seems a backwards way of dealing with it. seems like the real fix is to fix the universities where dissent is accepted/encouraged. providing a get out of jail free card (aka tenure) seems to defeat the nature of a university.

 

[volinbham]

I find tenure problematic at state schools, but private schools can do whatever they want. Tenure shouldn't be some thing you just give to all professors who meet certain requirements...it should be a bargaining chip for keeping talent, nothing more.

The problem with the bargaining chip view is that you will increasingly limit diversity of thought/research since like tends to protect like.

It is a merit based system (at least on the granting side) whereby those who meet the criteria are granted tenure and those who do not are not.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Maybe, tenure should be angled more toward salary and "say so" on boards and curriculum reviews. Used as a method for keeping your job (think union), **** no.

 

[volinbham]

I am saying no. to bhams point about the anti-PC, tenure seems a backwards way of dealing with it. seems like the real fix is to fix the universities where dissent is accepted/encouraged. providing a get out of jail free card (aka tenure) seems to defeat the nature of a university.

I'd argue that tenure is the only thing that protects dissent. The mythical fix you suggest would be better but it ain't gonna happen.

 

[lawgator1]

In my former life, there was a period of time when I was working on my Master's in a field where basically the only career path was university teaching. What I learned of it at the time was that it seemed to have taken on a life of its own in that new professors worked hard to publish and then got tenure, then became very lazy. The old "publish or perish" mantra.

They only continued to work hard if they wanted to advance in their field, i.e. to another University that paid more or was more prestigious.

The thing that struck me is that it seemed to be only research-based. And that was how I perceived in an area that really was not amenable to objective study. Point being, even lousy teachers in the arts & humanities could achieve tenure if they published enough.

Which I found odd.

(Random, I know. But you asked).

 

[McDad]

Yes (if college administrators want it).

ONLY issue I had were the handful of tenured profs who no longer gaf about actually teaching others. Their "lectures" were dry, questions unwelcome, and they technically had office hours but made it known students weren't welcome. Apathetic and pathetic.
But power is in student's hands at bigger schools because more than one faculty offer same courses. Students learn which are easy, or quality, or uncaring. Students can drop class, too.

 

[volinbham]

Tenure granting is almost always based on research accomplishments (right or wrong) - it is the most objective measurement of performance.

Depending on research focus at the university one doesn't have to be particularly good at teaching to earn tenure.

The tenure-track model is typically focused on the research aspect of a university mission. The advancement of knowledge rather than the delivery of knowledge.

As you move from research focused universities (typical of state schools) to education focused private colleges the awarding of tenure moves from research record to teaching/service contributions.

Just some FYI

 

[Rishvol]

I think of a professor gets tenure it's because they are earning the university money by either research or students go to the school specifically for that major/subject the professor teaches if they are a big contributor to that reason. Take ETSU for example. Students join the psychology department specifically because of Chris Dula. So since a he's a direct link to the university receiving revenue he should get tenure.

 

[hog88]

The problem with the bargaining chip view is that you will increasingly limit diversity of thought/research since like tends to protect like.

It is a merit based system (at least on the granting side) whereby those who meet the criteria are granted tenure and those who do not are not.

Is “diversity of thought” ever used in refusing tenure?

 

[volinbham]

Is “diversity of thought” ever used in refusing tenure?

good question.

typically tenure requirements are written such that someone who demonstrates productivity (meets the standards) is granted tenure.

I have seen where it was reluctantly granted because the person held the wrong opinions but the process protected the person.

I've also seen where the rules are made looser for PC reasons.

 

[Orangeslice13]

That was tough.
I really like pie.

 

[Grand Vol]

I'm going to say no. Emphatically no.

Here's the problem. You have a professor that ends up being way less than professional and/or effective in the classroom. The university wants to rid themselves of that problem, however, tenure prohibits them from removing what very well could be a bad apple. Now, I'm sure they will eventually get enough "evidence" to remove them for cause, but danged if that won't take a while.

On the other hand, without tenure, it's easy for a university to say "nope, sorry, not renegotiating your contract extension and not renewing it. Have a good one."

Of you have a situation like that witch out in Cali who basically says "I can say WTF I want and you can't do anything about it because of tenure." She's well within her rights to say what she wants, but generally not without repercussions. At least in the working world. However, tenure does protect her to a degree.

So, no. I do not think the program works. Are there profs out there doing a great job and deserve consideration for program or contract extensions? Yep. The academic world should mirror the business world when it comes to employment. Especially at State run institutions.

 

[rtb1983]

Yes. Mainly because my wife is Tenured and I’m selfish.

 

[volinbham]

I'm going to say no. Emphatically no.

Here's the problem. You have a professor that ends up being way less than professional and/or effective in the classroom. The university wants to rid themselves of that problem, however, tenure prohibits them from removing what very well could be a bad apple. Now, I'm sure they will eventually get enough "evidence" to remove them for cause, but danged if that won't take a while.

On the other hand, without tenure, it's easy for a university to say "nope, sorry, not renegotiating your contract extension and not renewing it. Have a good one."

Of you have a situation like that witch out in Cali who basically says "I can say WTF I want and you can't do anything about it because of tenure." She's well within her rights to say what she wants, but generally not without repercussions. At least in the working world. However, tenure does protect her to a degree.

So, no. I do not think the program works. Are there profs out there doing a great job and deserve consideration for program or contract extensions? Yep. The academic world should mirror the business world when it comes to employment. Especially at State run institutions.

tenure isn't designed to protect the situations you mentioned - it just happens to do so.

tenure is to ensure that someone who's work goes against the grain of popular/status quo beliefs won't be fired because he/she is an academic heretic.

even without tenure I don't think that deplorable prof at Fresno should be fired for being an a-hole on Twitter - likewise I don't think one should be fired in the private sector for similar action.

there are abuses to be sure

 

[volinbham]

Yes. Mainly because my wife is Tenured and I’m selfish.

I've earned tenure twice and I'm grateful for it!

 

[LouderVol]

I'd argue that tenure is the only thing that protects dissent. The mythical fix you suggest would be better but it ain't gonna happen.

what percentage of tenure is going to the dissenters? Unless it is to a higher degree than the typical professor population I don't see how you can say it protects dissent.

 

[Grand Vol]

tenure isn't designed to protect the situations you mentioned - it just happens to do so.

There's the rub.

tenure is to ensure that someone who's work goes against the grain of popular/status quo beliefs won't be fired because he/she is an academic heretic.

I suppose I'd have to have better examples of such heresy to have a better opinion. I would tend to think a prof challenging students not to accept the popular norm and find things out on their own could be/should be somewhat protected. But when an academic goes out on the hairy fringe, sometimes a university should be able to cut ties far easier.

even without tenure I don't think that deplorable prof at Fresno should be fired for being an a-hole on Twitter - likewise I don't think one should be fired in the private sector for similar action.

there are abuses to be sure

Here's the thing, she is abusing the tenure system. Now, should she be fired for a one time deal? Perhaps not. However, it does appear this prof (and I use that term loosely) does have a habit of making controversial statements and standing on fringe positions. I saw a video of her "greatest hits" in which she relished the fact students got up and left her classroom.

No, they are there to learn, not to get chased out of the lecture for whatever reason. And furthermore, she tends to hide behind her tenure while flipping off Fresno State and giving the public a big "eff you!" There is a limit on when and where that tenure system should protect those outlying "heretics" in the academic world.

But you say protections should extend to the business world. I say you're wrong. There is no such thing as a lifetime contract in the business world and such things can easily be ended when the time comes. My job security is based on my ability to perform my job and little else. However, if I was to go out spouting all kinds of Hillary and Obama rhetoric (my CEO is a staunch conservative) in public and it makes national news, you'd best bet my contract likely won't be renewed. Because having a job isn't a guaranteed right. Not so much with academic tenure. "Prof for life!" is about the best way to put it.