The Wizard's Stance on Tenured Professors
Quote: rdw4potusI haven't listened to the show - should I assume that the tenured professor was pro-tenure while the former adjunct was anti-tenure?
If this wasn't the case, I'd be shocked. The current system is an improvement than what it used to be though, imo. But since I would like to be a prof. someday, I wish tenure was easier at least in my field...lol
"The juvenile sea squirt wanders through the ocean searching for a suitable rock or hunk or coral to cling to and make its home for life. When it finds its spot and takes root, it doesn't need its brain any more, so it eats it. It's rather like getting tenure." -- Michael Scriven
Zcore13
In reality, I think the tenure system is just a part of the established compensation structure in the academia. If a university decides to stop the tenure system, all the tenured professors will move somewhere else and the new hires won't be as good (presumably, the potential new hires who are good will stay away from a school without tenure system). .
Actually, I changed the subject from tenure. The idea that professors as a whole stop doing research after tenure is not something I wanted to argue. I was in academia for 25 years, 15 of which was at a very low-level Ph.D. granting university and 10 years at one of the top universities in the world (Mike's alma mater, UCSB). I was granted tenure at my first position in 1989 (Department of Mathematics, Ohio University), and I resigned that position in 1997. I was granted "Security of Employment" at UCSB in 2006 and resigned that position in 2009. I am the only person I know who has resigned tenured positions twice. You have to really hate academia to give up tenure -- a lifetime job, guaranteed, with very little work -- twice.Quote: debitncreditI was catching up on Gambling with an Edge and during the show with Eliot Jacobson, the Wizard and Eliot started a "heated" argument about tenure system and researching in the higher education. Bob quickly changed the subject. Can I get the Wizard's opinion on the merit (or the lack thereof) of the tenure system?
It is too complicated to say something meaningful in a few sentences about the issue. But, I too would like to hear what Mike has to say. He seemed ready to argue the point with me on-air, and I just didn't want to go there. The quote Mike has above is very dark and ignores all that is great about tenure. Surely he understands that tenure is a good result for some of our finest minds and a bad result for those who abuse it.
Quote: teliotActually, I changed the subject from tenure. The idea that professors as a whole stop doing research after tenure is not something I wanted to argue. I was in academia for 25 years, 15 of which was at a very low-level Ph.D. granting university and 10 years at one of the top universities in the world (Mike's alma mater, UCSB). I was granted tenure at my first position in 1989, and I resigned that position in 1997. I was granted "Security of Employment" at UCSB in 2006 and resigned that position in 2009. I am the only person I know who has resigned tenured positions twice. You have to really hate academia to give up tenure -- a lifetime job, guaranteed, with very little work -- twice.
It is too complicated to say something meaningful in a few sentences about the issue. But, I too would like to hear what Mike has to say. He seemed ready to argue the point with me on-air, and I just didn't want to go there. The quote Mike has above is very dark and ignores all that is great about tenure. Surely he understands that tenure is a good result for some of our finest minds and a bad result for those who abuse it.
Although there is some merit to what has been said, one can argue the opposite. Arguably the greatest mind in the world, Einstein wrote all his significant work while working as a clerk. Can't say he did much after getting in academia that compares to what he did before.
Achievements of scientist without tenure has shined brighter than those who did works with tenure.
What's your point? Do you honestly believe that tenure is the reason that Einstein never achieved his original peak again?Quote: AceCrAAckersAlthough there is some merit to what has been said, one can argue the opposite. Arguably the greatest mind in the world, Einstein wrote all his significant work while working as a clerk. Can't say he did much after getting in academia that compares to what he did before.
Achievements of scientist without tenure has shined brighter than those who did works with tenure.
Do you think that Fermat's Last Theorem could have been proven by a mathematician who didn't have tenure? It took Andrew Wiles 7 years of work, without a meaningful publication in the interim, to get the proof completed. Without tenure, that result would still be a conjecture. You give Einstein as an example because that's the example you know. For that one example, I'll give you 1000 that go the other way.
Quote: teliotWhat's your point? Do you honestly believe that tenure is the reason that Einstein never achieved his original peak again?
The point is one does not need tenure to do great research. Tenure does not produce better scientist is my point. In some ways it may harm them.
Back when Ricky Henderson was playing baseball, he loved to talk about himself and he loved to talk about himself in the 3rd person. He had just signed with the Padres. Previously when he had played for the Blue Jays, Yankees and A's (the 2nd time) he would always sit in the front of the Bus on the way to Spring Training games. When he got onto the bus with the Padres someone was sitting in his seat. Rickey asked another player on the team that he knew why someone was sitting in "his" seat. The person answered "because he has tenure". Rickey replied back "Ten Year? Rickey's got 17 year!"
ZCore13
Tenure allows a great researcher to do research. Of course it makes them better. It made Einstein better. The problem is that the theorems he proved before his academic life were already at the mountain top, what was he supposed to do next?Quote: AceCrAAckersThe point is one does not need tenure to do great research. Tenure does not produce better scientist is my point. In some ways it may harm them.
What's true is that those who are not in academia don't understand it very well. They don't know what's good or bad about tenure or why. They don't understand the struggles of departments, colleges and universities to come to grips with the problems of tenure. They don't know the frustration inside departments when faculty abuse positions that could go to bright young minds. They don't understand how tenure affects moral. They don't know the pressures on faculty -- that one's whole life's work comes down to the whim of a vote of the faculty on some lazy Tuesday afternoon.
Imagine. You have 4 years of undergraduate work, 4-6 years of graduate work to get a Ph.D., 6 years of teaching, research, conferences and trying your hardest to publish. That 14+ years of your life devoted to one single thing. To do research in your chosen area, to do what you love. Then it comes down to a vote of some scum-sucking politics between factions who have immoral self-interests and don't really care what happens to you if you don't get tenure. And once you don't get tenure, it's all over. You will never work in academia again (unless you consider a community college academia).
This is what happened to one of my peers and it is why I resigned from Ohio University. This man had a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, was an undergraduate at Harvard at age 14, and was one of the finest researchers I have ever met. But because he was my friend and I was at political odds with most of the department, this fine man was denied tenure at "lofty" Ohio University. It was an abomination. It was all that is ugly about tenure.
Meanwhile at UCSB, I have as many great stories about how tenure has driven first-rate research. You need only go to the department of Computer Science and start looking through the resumes of its faculty to understand that the Internet you are using today would not exist but for those people.
It's not easy. That's what's true. Drawing a line from Einstein to modern day academia is a huge simplification.
That said, I know I had a lot of tenured dead wood professors at UCSB. In general, I think the young energetic, yet untenured, teachers were better. Regarding reserach, I know the UCSB library has about 5000 square feet devoted to obscure academic journals that nobody seems to read. Seriously, you never see anybody in that part of the library. Univsersites should be more about teaching and less about publishing.
Finally, I more or less oppose the notion of lifetime guaranteed employment in any field, except maybe judges. I believe in the free market, and if somebody isn't doing his/her job effecctively, then whoever is paying the salary should have the option to replace him/her with somebody who can. Eliot's example of somebody doing research showing that the university itself isn't teaching well seems like a ton of cure for an ounce of a problem.
Quote: teliot
What's true is that those who are not in academia don't understand it very well.
Eliot, I agree with everything you've said. But I think what most people don't understand is not only the tenure system, but how much of a job of a professor in higher education is research. As an undergraduate and master's student, I thought all professors do is teaching three classes a semester and take the summer off. I think most people do not understand, which is understandable, that research is what drives the reputation of departments, schools, and universities.
Quote: WizardI believe in the free market....
In a practical stand point, I think the tenure system does not go away, precisely because it IS a part of the free market. There are states that are trying to get rid of tenure at public universities, but it doesn't and won't happen because good young researchers/teachers will not work at a university that doesn't reward good teaching/research with tenure.
The first way we differ is that I don't think of universities in terms of good teaching. A place like UCSB, with the quality of its faculty, is centered on research.Quote: Wizard
That said, I know I had a lot of tenured dead wood professors at UCSB. In general, I think the young energetic, yet untenured, teachers were better. Regarding reserach, I know the UCSB library has about 5000 square feet devoted to obscure academic journals that nobody seems to read. Seriously, you never see anybody in that part of the library. Univsersites should be more about teaching and less about publishing.
Finally, I more or less oppose the notion of lifetime guaranteed employment in any field, except maybe judges. I believe in the free market, and if somebody isn't doing his/her job effecctively, then whoever is paying the salary should have the option to replace him/her with somebody who can. Eliot's example of somebody doing research showing that the university itself isn't teaching well seems like a ton of cure for an ounce of a problem.
When I was doing this stuff, the evaluation we used was 40-40-20 (research, teaching, service). But at UCSB, everyone knew it was 90-5-5. Research was the only thing for tenure. If your research was great, you could suck at teaching. But if your teaching was the best in the world, but you didn't publish much, you would get kicked on your butt.
I agree that tenure should be reconsidered at universities primarily devoted to teaching. There is no reason to keep lousy teachers at four-year liberal arts colleges. I had some extraordinary teachers as an undergraduate at Humboldt State University. Because of those teachers, my classmates ended up as graduate students at Berkeley, MIT and other top tier graduate schools (not me, I ended up at University of Arizona). If you want good teachers, go to a college with good teachers.
As for the libraries, I can't imagine you are seriously denigrating the value of journals. I ran the mathematics collection in the library at Ohio University and was responsible for ordering their journals. I knew first hand, from the faculty in the department, what they were reading. The journals were critical to the research of the department.
Quote: iluvdisco33These days, tenure is as cancerous to our schools as many of our unions are to industry. It's time has come, and now it's time to go. It's so broken down that there's little need to seek any other reasons why our education system ranks so low among other civilized nations.
I want to point out that tenure system is driven by research. I am absolutely against high school teachers with tenure. In the higher education, however, the brightest minds of the world still flock to U.S. universities as students and professors for education and research. We do not see European high school students immigrating to the U.S. to go to Public School No. 17.
I agree 100%. To keep someone on, however, because being a H.S. teacher requires a 1-year commitment, it is reasonable to renew contracts on a 3-year basis. The same goes for teaching (non/research) faculty at a university, in my opinion.Quote: debitncreditI want to point out that tenure system is driven by research. I am absolutely against high school teachers with tenure.
Quote: iluvdisco33These days, tenure is as cancerous to our schools as many of our unions are to industry. It's time has come, and now it's time to go. It's so broken down that there's little need to seek any other reasons why our education system ranks so low among other civilized nations.
LOL wtf are you talking about, we have the strongest university system in the world. We are discussing universities here, not K-12. Our strong university system may/may not be due to tenure, but it's definitely due to the significant amount of money our government devotes to academic research.
Tenure can obviously cause the problem of "deadwood" faculty, but it's still important to allow top researchers to try innovative ideas which may or may not work (ideas that attempt to cure cancer/AIDS for example). Without tenure, faculty will be much more conservative in their research path to ensure their future employment and lead to less groundbreaking research that is less useful to us as a society.
As other posters have pointed out, major universities are mainly not in the business to teach your precious snowflakes; they are there to conduct fundamental research. Tenure when used properly helps facilitate this.
Quote: teliotI agree 100%. To keep someone on, however, because being a H.S. teacher requires a 1-year commitment, it is reasonable to renew contracts on a 3-year basis. The same goes for teaching (non/research) faculty at a university, in my opinion.
I also agree with this. High school teachers shouldn't have tenure to the extent college professors have. And people like the Wizard should be happy to know more and more non-research faculty have openings like this and less opportunities for tenure just to teach at a major research university.
Quote: teliotWhen I was doing this stuff, the evaluation we used was 40-40-20 (research, teaching, service). But at UCSB, everyone knew it was 90-5-5.
I think it should be more like 20-60-20.
Quote:If you want good teachers, go to a college with good teachers.
Who doesn't want good teachers?
Quote: WizardWho doesn't want good teachers?
Perhaps the sponsors of the research programs that pay a bunch of the bills (particularly overhead) at the university.
Mike, it still surprises me that you so misunderstand the mission of our best universities. I think this is the reason I didn't want to engage during the radio program.Quote: WizardI think it should be more like 20-60-20. Who doesn't want good teachers?
As I re-read this comment, it sounds so arrogant. But, as a former professor, I have no problem being arrogant.
Quote: WizardWho doesn't want good teachers?
Quote: DocPerhaps the sponsors of the research programs that pay a bunch of the bills (particularly overhead) at the university.
Definitely. A good researcher and a good teacher is a rare breed. My advisor has about 200 pubs and was the best teacher I had in grad school as well and also had won a College of Engineering Teaching award. Half of them sucked at teaching, but they were virtually all research machines. (University of Illinois)
Quote: teliotMike, it still surprises me that you so misunderstand the mission of our best universities.
I think what Eliot is trying to say is (forgive me if it's not) that he'd rather see the best nuclear physicist in the world spend 90% of his/her time working/researching on how to make cold fusion work, rather than 60% of his/her time teaching Physics 101 to undergrads.
The cost associated with tenure is the freeloader. It's true that some get tenure and grow complacent.
The cost associated with the elimination of tenure is intellectual freedom. Why teach or do research on a topic that has the potential to get you fired (or not renewed)?
It's up to each to decide how those costs weigh against one another.
Perfectly said!Quote: debitncreditI think what Eliot is trying to say is (forgive me if it's not) that he'd rather see the best nuclear physicist in the world spend 90% of his/her time working/researching on how to make cold fusion work, rather than 60% of his/her time teaching Physics 101 to undergrads.
it was. From Wiki:
"The period since 1972 has seen a steady decline in the percentage
of college and university teaching positions in the US that are either
tenured or tenure-track. United States Department of Education
statistics put the combined tenured/tenure-track rate at 56% for
1975, 46.8% for 1989, and 31.9% for 2005. That is to say, by the
year 2005, 68.1% of US college teachers were neither tenured nor
eligible for tenure."
Looks like tenure's on the way out, doesn't it.
Quote: debitncreditI think what Eliot is trying to say is (forgive me if it's not) that he'd rather see the best nuclear physicist in the world spend 90% of his/her time working/researching on how to make cold fusion work, rather than 60% of his/her time teaching Physics 101 to undergrads.
Forgive my ignorance, but why wouldn't the NRC hire such an individual to do such research outside the confines of acadamia?
Quote: EvenBobTenure has a very rocky past and its not what
it was. From Wiki:.
Well, hello, stranger. How's it hangin'?
Quote: WizardForgive my ignorance, but why wouldn't the NRC hire such an individual to do such research outside the confines of acadamia?
I'm not very familier with NRC specifically. If I have to just throw in something, I can think of two issues:
1. I don't know if NRC employees researchers. If I have to guess, NRC gives grants to college professors to do research in the name of NRC (This is based on what I know about how NBER works).
2. NRC can have its particular incentives to see certain results from its research. Climate change research comes to my mind. An organization can have an incentive to find results supporting one way or the other. A researcher would be shielded from getting fired for finding "unfavorable" results if he/she has tenure. The confines of academia essentially gives researchers freedom from pressures of private employers.
Quote: teliotPerfectly said!
So where does one send the undergrad to get a good teacher for Physics 101? There needs to be someplace that is teaching the basics of physics to undergrads so that a few of them become the great researchers of tomorrow.
It doesn't sound like UCSB, or other instititutions that aspire to the 5/90/5 allocation, are the right places to be steering our high school graduates to attend.
As for how to select a college for introductory studies, maybe you need to check with a guidance counselor. I don't claim to know the best way, but this is the path I followed: I enrolled for my first degree at a highly-regarded 4-yr school that these almost-50 years later is still maintaining its position as an undergraduate-only college. The teachers were excellent, and while some were engaged in research, I never was aware of any of it.
Then, for my other four degrees, I went to a highly-regarded institute that has an extensive research program in numerous fields. I also spent more than 25 years of my career working for that same institute as a member of the research faculty. While doing that, I taught close to 40 offerings of 8 different courses in three of the academic units, though I was never in a tenured or tenure-track position.
I'll name the two schools if anyone cares, but that's probably irrelevant to these discussions.
I go with teliot's view that the job of a professor is research first and teaching second. Professors typically may spend 6 hours a week teaching classes. The jobs of labs, marking, tutorials, etc falls on the graduate students assigned to the class. Some professors embrace teaching and open up their doors to their students, while others make themselves generally unavailable.
The track to tenureship is foremost the quality of your research as well as your teaching credentials. At my University (Toronto, also a world leader), student feedback was used to judge how professors were doing. Peers would then look at your research credentials and make a decision from there. I think it was a 75-25 research to teaching ratio.
When you think about it, the path to tenureship is very long and arduous. You are underpaid for a very long time, first as a grad student, then a PhD candidate, and work very very hard without really any kind of job security, and you have to be careful not to be controversial in your research. I think that some professors, once tenured, can "rest" on their laurels and to the minimum to retirement.
And because professors generally possess the best minds on the planet and are notoriously underpaid (while on the path to tenureship), I don't have a problem with the tenure system.
Some of them cared, though their caring tended to be less than perfectly directed, and some of them didn't; no one could do anything about the latter, as long as they clocked most of their hours.
Hardly "best minds on the planet"; the best teachers were ones who worked real-world industry jobs.
Not only were they obviously still on top of their subject matter, with their brain still alive, rather than stuck repeating the same thing over for decades, but all of them cared. Because they'd have to work with us later, because what we'd do would affect them, because they still were in a position to be affected. Not even to mention real-world help with jobs, scholarships, direction, plus their much more up-to-date knowledge.
You're arguing it's fair because they were underpaid as PhDs. Maybe so. But this tenure system takes it out on the students. And on whoever their academic work is meant to benefit.
Quote: ParadigmSo where does one send the undergrad to get a good teacher for Physics 101? There needs to be someplace that is teaching the basics of physics to undergrads so that a few of them become the great researchers of tomorrow.
I think the point is that utilizing a big proportion of great researcher's time in classroom is overkill. Even smart graduate students can teach undergraduate classes very well.
Going into a real tangent here, if I had to do it again, I'd go two years at a community college, transfer to a big name state university for the 3rd and 4th year, go to a bigger name state university for master's and a very prestigous state/private university for PhD. It would have saved a lot of money.
I think the expensive private school for an undergraduate degree is the biggest waste in the education bubble right now. "I'm glad I now have a BA in philosophy from Duke and a $200,000 student loan" said nobody.
Quote: P90the best teachers were ones who worked real-world industry jobs and taught on a hourly basis.
I've thought about this a lot. I think it goes back what is considered "best teachers." When I was an undergraduate student, my "best teachers" were the funny ones and easy ones. Those were usually the ones with real-world industry jobs because they had a lot of fun stories and didn't care about giving everyone an A.
At some point, if university classes are all taught by industry people, that sounds very vocational training-y for me. Well, at least in my discipline.
The question is "who do you want your teachers to be?". Because universities force their faculty to teach when they are recongized for their research, the professor's strengths are in research, not teaching. A great university teacher might get your recognized by your students, but if your research is crap, then your career in university goes nowhere.
Graduate students can teach 1st year calculus pretty effectively: it would be the same as a high school graduate coaching their little brother or sister in grade 9 math. I had a number of courses in University where the graduate students made the course worthwhile -- they were closer to the course content and were much more relatable than the professors were.
Quote: P90the best teachers were ones who worked real-world industry jobs.
Not claiming at all to be one of "the best teachers", but I worked in industry for almost a decade before taking the university position, and most of my university research was performed in, or in conjunction with, industrial facilities. That background certainly made it easier to come up with class examples that students could recognize as relevant to their future careers.
Quote: debitncreditI think the expensive private school for an undergraduate degree is the biggest waste in the education bubble right now. "I'm glad I now have a BA in philosophy from Duke and a $200,000 student loan" said nobody.
As a related point, that 4-yr undergraduate school I mentioned studying at first was/is private. It is fairly expensive, but now they have student financial aid programs that allow all of the students to graduate without any loans at all -- just scholarships, grants, and on-campus employment to cover their total financial aid needs. I had a small loan years ago before they had the current program, but it wasn't onerous.
Quote: ParadigmSo where does one send the undergrad to get a good teacher for Physics 101? There needs to be someplace that is teaching the basics of physics to undergrads so that a few of them become the great researchers of tomorrow.
It doesn't sound like UCSB, or other instititutions that aspire to the 5/90/5 allocation, are the right places to be steering our high school graduates to attend.
Here are a couple:
Rose–Hulman Institute of Technology
Harvey Mudd College
They are expensive, but job prospects are great when you finish (all STEM degrees, mostly).
Quote: debitncreditI think the point is that utilizing a big proportion of great researcher's time in classroom is overkill. Even smart graduate students can teach undergraduate classes very well.
Going into a real tangent here, if I had to do it again, I'd go two years at a community college, transfer to a big name state university for the 3rd and 4th year, go to a bigger name state university for master's and a very prestigous state/private university for PhD. It would have saved a lot of money.
I think the expensive private school for an undergraduate degree is the biggest waste in the education bubble right now. "I'm glad I now have a BA in philosophy from Duke and a $200,000 student loan" said nobody.
Bolded part is the problem. If you're going to have substantial student loan debt, at least get a degree that will pay you well (science/engineering). I and my parents/grandparents/scholarship endowers spent something like $100K on my undergrad tuition, and I finished with just $24K in loans. I was able to pay them off in about 2 years, give or take.
Quote: Hari and the Co-ed
I was on the way to teach my second calculus class. As I walked down the stairs I passed Hari, a silver-haired professor celebrating his thirtieth year with the department, standing by the elevator. He caught my attention and said in his thick accent: "Eliot, pretty soon I must have talk with you. You know there are things going on around here and I just want to know if you are on side of what's right and ethical or just what side you are on."
Hari's office was next to mine and these talks were a routine affair. On only one occasion, when I told him he was a "troublemaker," did I incite him to throw books and papers around his office, screaming at me that I was one of them. It took some creative manuevering to get him to understand that by a "troublemaker" I meant one who confronts people with uncomfortable issues, which can be a positive thing.
The elevator door opened and a student exited. Hari noticed that the light indicated it was going down, so he turned to me and continued: "You know you are one of up and comers in department, one of rising stars. Pretty soon you and your generation in charge around here. I just need to know right now: will you take a stand for what's right?"
The elevator returned from its one floor orbit and opened with the arrow clearly indicating "up." Hari put one foot in the door and waited for my response. I glanced at the co-ed glued to the rear of the elevator. Her gentle expression indicated she understood; I need offer no explanation.
I turned to Hari: "I'm familiar with your problems, Hari, and I just want you to know I support you. But support, even for what is right, has its limits." It was not enough. Hari very patiently explained how he was on the faculty senate, a respected member of the academic community. He told me once again about his teaching awards, his years with the department, how they had no right to do this to him.
Hari absent-mindedly noticed the patient co-ed. He almost stepped out of the elevator, then continued: "I've gone to see president (of our university) and showed him numbers, and he knows how it smells. It stinks! Why they give this guy a ten for service and he was not even here -- he was on leave in Russia -- and I get five-and-a-half! He (the previous chairman) just made up numbers: ten here, three there, to his friends, anyway he wanted, just like that." He tried to snap his fingers, but succeeded only in all small "thwap." I tried to console him with the thought that we had a new chairman, who should be given a chance.
He started shaking his index finger at me and said with some agitation: "Things will be shaken up around here, my friend, I can assure you of that, you have my word!"
The Co-ed crossed her arms in front of her, and shifted her weight to the other foot. I noticed that she, unlike most others her age, did not have her hair "done." One thin strand followed her arm down to where she gently held the unnatural tome. She wore a tight but comfortable pair of blue-jeans and a man's plaid shirt that concealed any thought of her breasts. Her face was comfortable, dignified, almost familiar.
The elevator door started to close on Hari and he put up his hand to block it: "You must stand up for what you know is right, what you see clearly is honest! Now I see it is almost ten past the hour and you must get to class. I will let you go, but we must talk more about this later!"
As I turned to walk to class I heard the elevator door close on Hari and the co-ed.
Quote: WizardUnivsersites should be more about teaching and less about publishing.
I have to strongly disagree with this. Universities are the only place that research gets done.
I agree that many professors are terrible teachers, but, teaching is not their main job. You do not need a professor to be teaching a lower-year mathematics course. That is a terrible waste of their talents.
Quote:Finally, I more or less oppose the notion of lifetime guaranteed employment in any field, except maybe judges. I believe in the free market, and if somebody isn't doing his/her job effecctively, then whoever is paying the salary should have the option to replace him/her with somebody who can.
Tenure does not go against the notion of a free market. Universities can choose to offer tenured positions, or not, and professors can choose to apply to work at those universities, or not. It is a great example of a free market. The very best can more or less dictate their own terms, and, if they are not met, they can simply go elsewhere.
