The Wizard's Stance on Tenured Professors

I 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?

I haven't listened to the show - should I assume that the tenured professor was pro-tenure while the former adjunct was anti-tenure?

Quote: rdw4potus

I 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

My thoughts on that topic can be summed up in this quote.

"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

Now that is comedy. Great quote!

Zcore13

LOL! Gosh, why did your friend the formerly-tenured professor take offense to that? ;-)

From what I understand, originally and conceptually, the tenure system was put in place so that researching professors, who have proven that they are good researchers do not have to fear that they may get fired if their research results offend someone higher up in the university. For example, a professor who finds in his research that universities are not efficient with its funds and students are not taught well shouldn't have to worry about being fired if his research is published.

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). .

Quote: debitncredit

I 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?

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.

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: teliot

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, 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.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

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?

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.