Tenure in Name Only

Avatar

Vikram Bath

Vikram Bath is the pseudonym of a former business school professor living in the United States with his wife, daughter, and dog. (Dog pictured.) His current interests include amateur philosophy of science, business, and economics. Tweet at him at @vikrambath1.

Related Post Roulette

69 Responses

  1. Avatar greginak
    Ignored
    says:

    The best post docs and early career researchers will be well aware of the policies there. That will certainly be a factor and puts UW at a disadvantage for the high quality researchers. I don’t see anyway that wouldn’t be true. Does that mean they will be a lesser institution, that is harder to say but it won’t help them and they could lose a few prizes.

    The better question is does this change help the budget or anything else is Wisconsin.Report

  2. Avatar Mike Schilling
    Ignored
    says:

    Does this policy apply only to new hires, or to currently tenured faculty as well? The latter seems like unilateral abrogation of an existing contract, and thus illegal as hell.Report

  3. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    “Will the price go down?”

    If the price of university goes down, nobody will care that they’re not being taught by tenured professors. (How many underclassmen are taught by non-tenured profs now?)

    The benefits of being taught by a tenured professor strike me as being orthogonal to the desires of students being taught in today’s university system.

    “I was taught by a greybeard with tenure” is not one of the boxes to tick off on a checklist for employment.Report

    • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      No, the prices won’t go down. Tenure has only a limited effect on the price of tuition compared to the ability of universities to charge what the market would bare because of student loans.Report

    • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Has anybody actually made the argument that getting rid of tenure would lower costs???

      In any case getting the highest level researchers is about making big discoveries, running high level doctoral level programs/labs/ big research grants that do lots of things for Unis like bring in money, good publicity and bring the leading edge science.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to greginak
        Ignored
        says:

        Has anybody actually made the argument that getting rid of tenure would lower costs???

        Not that I’ve seen, but if I wanted to sell this program on a high level, I’d knock a couple grand off of tuition for a few years before turning the ratchet back on.

        In any case getting the highest level researchers is about making big discoveries, running high level doctoral level programs/labs/ big research grants that do lots of things for Unis like bring in money, good publicity and bring the leading edge science.

        Yeah, but we’re talking years down the road, here. *YEARS*.

        Until that money starts rolling in, these people are nothing but overhead.

        Will the students still line up around the block to sign loans to go to this university and sign up for classes that they will then cut because of a bad hangover?Report

        • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          I’m not sure what Sconsin’s argument is, but it seems to me that once you start voting tenured profs off the island you’d have to sell students on something more than ideological purity. Tho maybe that’d work too?: “come to Sconsin, where tenured liberals have been purged.”Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater
            Ignored
            says:

            Who is talking about ideological purity here?

            Just tell students “employers want you to get a degree from a university. We are a university. Show up, get a degree, get hired. Look at these numbers comparing the incomes of people with a degree to the incomes of people without one.”

            Repeat ad nauseum.Report

            • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              Well, that argument could be made without nixing tenure, yeah? YOu’re sales pitch requires a reduction in price. I don’t see that happening just cuz tenured profs are let go.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                What is the benefit for keeping tenure?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I mean, I know what the benefit is for the *PROFESSORS* who actually get through the gauntlet.

                What’s the benefit for the students to be taught by tenured professors?Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Given the current culture, the benefit to institutions is that they can compete for the best profs out there, be it in terms of teaching, research, publications, reputation, etc. That benefit transfers to the student because the institution they received their degree from is ranked based on the staff’s reputation in the field.

                I’m not saying this is right, but it’s real. If price is the only concern, students will choose to go to the higher ranked institution/department. ANd that means at least the offer of tenure. At least for now.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                What percent of applicants are being turned away by these colleges?

                If the percent is high double digits (and I’m pretty sure that the percent of applicants being turned away is amazingly high double digits and that’s without the people who get accepted and then don’t make tenure), what’s the measurable harm in becoming a college that only turns away fairly high double digits for applicants (and that’s without the people who get accepted but don’t get kept on for a third year)?Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                What percent of applicants are being turned away by these colleges?

                Well, bunches. High-high percentages, I’d guess.

                Maybe we oughta pass a law banning tenure? You know, make it a market-wide prohibition so’s no institution can free ride on the rational choices of a few?

                OK, that’s a joke. But I don’t share with you the view that tenure is THE problem with higher ed, or even A problem with it, on balance.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Why not pass a law protecting it? Surely a law will be able to withstand the winds that are blowing.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Jaybird, just to make sure we understand each other, if you have the mistaken belief I care about how this issue turns out, one way or the other, you’re mistaken.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                I kinda care how it turns out. But I’m one of those old-schooly kinda folks who thinks that we got on the wrong track ages ago (but thank the stars that I happened to catch the train at the tail end of it showing up at the right station anyway).

                We’re due for a correction. And it’ll be one hell of a correction.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                It makes employment more attractive without having to provide higher pay or benefits.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s a benefit for professors. It’s a secondary benefit, if not a tertiary benefit, for University Experience Consumers.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Other things being equal, a non-tenured position would have to pay better than a tenured position in order to attract a similarly qualified candidate, so a school without tenure will have to pay more for personnel in order to maintain an equally qualified faculty than a school with tenure. So the only ways it wouldn’t effect the consumer experience would be if equally effective faculty can be hired with a less attractive package of pay and benefits, faculty quality has no effect upon student/consumer outcome, or cost is irrelevant to student/consumer outcome. I am highly skeptical of those three propositions.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Don Zeko
                Ignored
                says:

                a non-tenured position would have to pay better than a tenured position in order to attract a similarly qualified candidate

                I’d really like to see the numbers for how many applicants there are for any given tenure track job. If we go from turning away 40 people per advertised tenure track position to turning away 28 people* per advertised tenure track position, I don’t know exactly how much loss there is when it comes to “similarly qualified”.

                *Numbers pulled out of my butt, but I suspect they’re low rather than high.Report

              • Avatar Don Zeko in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s fair. I’m importing an argument from debates about tenure in public primary schools, where I think it carries far more weight. Given the current labor market for academics, I would expect the effect I’m describing to be smaller than one would otherwise effect, perhaps small enough to ignore. I’m still flummoxed as to how removing tenure would reduce labor costs, though.Report

              • Avatar Michael Drew in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s speculative, and depends on which consumers of the university experience you are considering.

                It could result in a somewhat more motivated group of undergraduate teachers, if that’s something that the System sets out to establish incentives to achieve. But that assumes that a younger, less-credentialed, less-expert group of more motivated teachers creates a better experience for undergraduate consumers. It’s not clear that we know that it will compared to the teaching of a longer-retained set of tenured faculty under the old system. We just don’t know that’s true. It’s a theory.

                It also assumes that we primarily care about undergraduate students, which we might, but there there remains the graduate student experience. If you fail to attract top faculty to the university, the graduate experience you are offering declines uncomplicatedly with that decline. The value and experience of graduate degrees, or in any case certainly doctorates, essentially depend entirely on the quality of the top research faculty at an institution. If you attract and retain lower quality faculty, you are nearly ipso facto providing a worse graduate school experience and product.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Michael Drew
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s speculative

                Do you have measurables?

                If you fail to attract top faculty to the university, the graduate experience you are offering declines uncomplicatedly with that decline.

                How many universities are there? They can’t *ALL* have “top faculty”.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Michael Drew
                Ignored
                says:

                Check this out. (Warning: Slate link.)

                Here’s the teaser: An astonishingly small number of elite universities produce an overwhelming number of America’s professors.

                I am pretty sure that, at the end of the day, the glut of wannabe professors is large enough to be able to absorb this little shock.Report

              • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to Michael Drew
                Ignored
                says:

                If you fail to attract top faculty to the university, the graduate experience you are offering declines uncomplicatedly with that decline. The value and experience of graduate degrees, or in any case certainly doctorates, essentially depend entirely on the quality of the top research faculty at an institution.

                Indeed. In many fields, it’s not which school you got your Ph.D. from, it’s who supervised your work. Which carries all sorts of risks for the graduate students. Anyone who has spent time in a graduate school that offers Ph.D.s has encountered people who went through the disaster of having their highly-regarded supervising professor die/retire/move to another school.Report

            • Avatar KatherineMW in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              “Just tell students “employers want you to get a degree from a university. We are a university. Show up, get a degree, get hired. Look at these numbers comparing the incomes of people with a degree to the incomes of people without one.” ”

              Shouldn’t universities provide something more than a piece of paper and a mountain of debt?

              Or should we develop a system that cuts out the in-between part and just involves paying $20,000-$50,000 for a piece of paper that says you’re a better person to hire than those who didn’t buy a piece of paper?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to KatherineMW
                Ignored
                says:

                We’ve put so many carts before so many horses, I have no idea what correcting the path we’re on even looks like.

                We’re running universities like a business which means that managers run it instead of educators and they’re treating children/young-adults like consumers instead of like students. And employers, for some reason, seem to have abandoned OJT for the consumers who have recently purchased a University Experience(tm) and, suddenly, we’re discovering that tenure for professors aren’t really essential to what’s being bought or sold.

                And that’s without even getting into the whole “this part of the Canon offends me” criticism.

                We don’t even know (let alone agree) on what a university education is *FOR* anymore.Report

              • Avatar SaulDegraw in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                what if it was clients who objected to on the job training?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to SaulDegraw
                Ignored
                says:

                I’d really like a timeline of whether schools started being run by managers before corporations abandoned OJT or after.

                I’d also like to know whether this is a connection or a correlation but you can’t have everything.Report

              • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                My guess is that they were nearly concurrent.

                Though OTJ still exists but not to the extent of taking a kid right out of high school, putting him in the mail room, and then letting him get farther up the corporate ladder. That has not existed for a while.Report

              • Avatar SaulDegraw in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I concur with a lot of what you are saying BtwReport

              • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                We aren’t running anything. The reason why universities are being run like businesses because some of the more corrupt business people noticed that student loans are a great way to get rich during the 1980s. You charge what you can and take a good of chunk of the what you can for yourself in benefits and salary. You can even dole out favors to friends and family as John Saxton of NYU demonstrated.Report

            • Avatar Will H. in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              I believe any ideological purity aspect of it is being enforced at the grant level rather than the researcher level; e.g., Bruce Alexander’s Rat Park.Report

        • Avatar SaulDegraw in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Maybe I am revealing too much here but I know a lot of people who sincerely liked being taught by expert X in field Y and being research assistants.Report

    • Avatar Mo in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      If anything, I would guess that eliminating tenure will increase the cost of doing business. Either you’ll get worse faculty or they’ll demand more money for the added uncertainty.Report

  4. Avatar Oscar Gordon
    Ignored
    says:

    Not that I’m terribly happy about what Walker is doing to my Alma Mater, I think it will matter a lot how such a process is used. If it is a tool for political witch hunts of any stripe, that will matter a lot more than if it is only used sparingly. One would hope that Regents would be cognizant of the effects of abusing such a process.Report

    • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Oscar Gordon
      Ignored
      says:

      My big concern is less that this would be used for cultural / political witch hunts & more as a tool to toss academics who are not doing enough sexy research, or enough grant capturing research, or research that is momentarily an object of outrage.Report

    • Avatar Michael Drew in reply to Oscar Gordon
      Ignored
      says:

      @oscar-gordon

      I don’t think the Regents will use to look this policy much at all. They didn’t seek this; this was simply a political initiative of this governor. It does give them more flexibility, but it doesn’t force them to act. So we will probably see them use that flexibility a bit. But we won’t a large wave, either fast- or slow-rolling, initiated within The System (which is what we call the Wisconsin university system, which includes the Madison campus (though now given it more autonomy than it ever had in an ostensible “trade-off” for the $250M budget cuts of earlier this year and now this law).

      For this to get used in a major way (whether for broad, cost-cutting layoffs or targeted, ideological ones) I think would require further political action initiated by the governor (or a subsequent, ideologically like-minded one) or by political allies of his or other political actors of like mind in the state. That could certainly be coming next, though.Report

  5. Avatar Tod Kelly
    Ignored
    says:

    Out here on the West Coast, it’s becoming fairly common for tenure colleges and universities to not offer tenure, and instead offer a five year rolling contract.Report

  6. Avatar SaulDegraw
    Ignored
    says:

    I am in line with Greg and Oscar. This seems like a blatant culture war move because liberal academia has long been a target of the social right. This is going to hurt Wisconsin in the long run as top faculty or potential faculty flee.Report

    • Avatar aarondavid in reply to SaulDegraw
      Ignored
      says:

      Oh, I am sure there will be plenty of adjuncts still waiting to pick up a class or two. And students will still not give a shit who is teaching for the most part.

      It may indeed be a move to purge liberal academics, but as they say, payback is a bitch…Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to aarondavid
        Ignored
        says:

        And students will still not give a shit who is teaching for the most part.

        I don’t think this is true. Depending on the institution, upper division courses which aren’t taught by tenured faculty makes students really irritable. At some institutions, even 1000 level courses taught by adjuncts/Grad-students pisses students off. Sure, that’s not true of all kids, but how many?

        Adding: Is your view up there an instance of someone generalizing from their own experience? 🙂Report

        • Avatar aarondavid in reply to Stillwater
          Ignored
          says:

          I would say that it depends on which major you are talking about and at what school. Some schools/degrees tend to attract people for whom it matters, others not so much. And as students move through majors, the desire to move up the hierachy of able professors is desireable, if for no other reason than getting one’s money worth. Along with the fact that you are at that point moving into the realm of classes that professors like to teach, supposedly…

          As for me, at the school I went to the number of adjuncts to tenured was low, but that was 25 years ago at a school famous for teaching. Learn by doing!

          (I will admit to being a faculty brat, and knowing most of the profs, if not their kids. It does breed a fair strain of contempt when you know a particular prof can’t balance a checkbook.)Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to SaulDegraw
      Ignored
      says:

      This isn’t about the culture war at this point.

      I snort to think so.

      It’s about the bottom line. And professors just aren’t profitable. Well, not as profitable as adjucts happen to be.

      And we’ve established that you can teach undergrads with adjuncts and they will show up, refuse to read the syllabus, and cut class just as often as if real tenured professors taught them.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        You think the point is to reduce the number of faculty by firing them and replacing them all with all? That would kill Madison’s reputation, and quickly.Report

        • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling
          Ignored
          says:

          Will it kill Madison’s reputation so quickly that other colleges/universities will say “oh, crap! We’d better not do *THAT*!”?

          If there’s a god you believe in, I’d start praying to it that it does.Report

          • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            Yes. Schools that care about the US News rating (which is most if not all of the big ones) will run away from that like Jeb Bush running away from a simple declarative sentence.Report

            • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling
              Ignored
              says:

              Then there’s no problem. We’ve got a stupid policy that is so very stupid that it will result in pain so severe that it will result in a change in the stupid policy.

              If we’re lucky, the pain will be so so severe that people will be warned away from “they just didn’t do it right”.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                If, as you think, it’s a plan to reduce the number of faculty. I think it’s more a plan to be able to micromanage them by threatening them with being fired for insubordination..Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s not a plan as much as an attempt to get a head start on the race to the bottom.

                The micromanagement will happen to manifest itself more against those who speak out against the New Order that, out of nowhere!, showed up than it well those who happen to speak out against some libertarian bullshit or some republican bullshit. For some reason.Report

              • Avatar Michael Drew in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Huh?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Michael Drew
                Ignored
                says:

                I suspect that this is the first school of many to do this.

                It’s not some organized conspiracy, though. It’s not part of some culture war.

                The people in charge of the college are looking at their ledgers and have reached a conclusion that some things are costing them more money than they could make if they replaced said things. Threatening people with insubordination has nothing, at all, to do with what’s going on here. It’s a dry, emotionless, calculation.

                It’s not culture war. Not even close to culture war.

                I mean, if it was the culture war, the left would be winning.Report

              • Avatar David Parsons in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                > The people in charge of the college are looking at their ledgers …

                No, not in this case. Walker is catering to his base by sticking it to Madison (by killing the reputation of UW-Madison, which will cut way down on all of those lovely research dollars floating into the city.) The ledgers have very little to do with it.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to David Parsons
                Ignored
                says:

                After this, the deluge.Report

              • Avatar Michael Drew in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Then there’s no problem. We’ve got a stupid policy that is so very stupid that it will result in pain so severe that it will result in a change in the stupid policy.

                That’s a weird situation to regard as not containing a problem. Also: how in the world do you think you know that such a change will result? If it doesn’t, then does that imply that the pain, being not so severe that it will result in a change in the stupid policy, therefore isn’t a problem? So that there really can’t be a problem here – either the pain isn’t so severe that it will result in a change in the policy, so it (the policy and the pain it causes) isn’t bad/stupid enough to be a problem, *OR* it is so severe that it will result in a change in the policy, therefore since it will (by stipulation) be changed in due time, therefore it’s not a problem now?Report

          • Avatar Vikram Bath in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            Will it kill Madison’s reputation so quickly that other colleges/universities will say “oh, crap! We’d better not do *THAT*!”?

            Yes. If Madison were to get rid of all of it’s research-producing faculty overnight, their reputation would collapse overnight. At least among academics.

            I think it would take a bit longer for Madison’s public reputation to be affected, but I think it would negatively affect job prospects for students within [guessing here] 5 years.Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        This might be true for some institutions and some majors but in the STEM fields, showing up and doing the work is necessary because you get the technical skills you need for the job.Report

  7. Avatar Michael Drew
    Ignored
    says:

    This is like the biggest news to shoot through the supply side of the academic market in decades (maybe). No one’s going to have to pore over anything in order to get a rough idea of what my alma mater (well, my home state legislature) has done here. The most detailed details, yes. But it’s not like anyone offered a position is going to hear about this part way through their offer-acceptance process and be like, “Wait, what? There’s something new and wonky about Wisconsin’s tenure status now? I hadn’t heard anything about this.” Everyone in the market already has a general sense of what this about, and anyone who comes within a pebble’s toss of taking a position at Wisconsin will be fully versed in the details and how they compare to similar institutions) within the day of receiving an offer there, and many before applying.

    The issue is just how big a deal they judge it to be – initially and over time. The initial reaction will be bigger than the long-term one, but/and that initial reaction alone will have real and lasting effects on the university (system). And the long-term effect might not be small. It all depends on how the top talent reacts to this. I imagine it also depends on Wisconsin maintaining the top-level resources it offers to researchers looking to do field-leading work, which I’m not completely optimistic about either. But even if that’s maintained, this will have an effect.

    Wisconsin will continue to be able to attract mid-to-top-level talent, but it will now be harder to do so, and they will miss more often than they did before in that space as well. But I doubt the effect will be as pronounced.

    I am curious about whether this will cost Wisconsin money in the long run, in the event it looks to compete by raising salary offers. It’s not clear to me how much Wisconsin (the state) gains by being better able to fire tenured state university faculty. Is one of Wisconsin’s big fiscal or other-type problems a backlog of worthless mid-late career academics on university faculties? Not that I was aware of. I doubt you’re going to see a wave of fired profs coming out of this. You’re just going to have to pay the young talent more to make up for the lower job security if you want them to come. If we weren’t looking to fire a bunch of professors ex ante (and I don’t think we were), how is this not a clear loss to the state or at least to the System given that tradeoff?Report

  8. Avatar Richard Hershberger
    Ignored
    says:

    As an anecdatum, my brother was a tenured professor in a field where he could have greatly increased his salary with a few phone calls. He told me once about some captain of industry (or, more likely, recruiter for a captain of industry) who was trying to hire him, and asked him what it would take. His reply was “The one thing you can’t give me: tenure.”

    I have other academics in my family who have happily gone to what are far from geographically ideal locations for tenure track positions. It pretty much doesn’t matter where a school is. When a tenure track position opens up, there will be a line of applicants. Would this work for faux imitation tenure? I doubt it. This won’t be a problem for Madison, Wisconsin, which is generally considered a desirable location by people who don’t mind snow. But there are huge swaths of the country that don’t have this luxury.Report

    • Avatar Alan Scott in reply to Richard Hershberger
      Ignored
      says:

      This is the real danger right here. Not people jumping to different schools, but people jumping to different industries (or potential hires who avoid getting into teaching).

      You can already see it happening in k12 education, where in many areas with few job protections, there are massive teacher shortages, especially among high-demand disciplines.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *