Will tenure soon be dead?

[TheDude]

http://www.slate.com/id/2263348/

I have heard the case articulated much more clearly in other articles, but there seems to be an increasing wave of this kind of article arising in popular periodicals/newspapers of late.

What do you think?

Would you take a 35% pay increase and a 7- 10 year contract?

Do you want the system to remain the same?

I personally don't think think a 7 year contract does much for the number of adjuncts hoping to find a more stable job position within the academy, which is probably a result of the market (supply & demand) in terms of the number of Ph.Ds there are.

Perhaps this new crop of grad students will be the first to have to deal with this prospect?

[Alette]

That article was was the first I had read that spun tenure as being bad for academics. However, it did not mention adjuncts - who are the focus of most of the other articles I have read on this topic - which is a gross oversight. The gap between tenure track and adjunct positions is widening. That, combined with the fact that many universities are getting rid of tenure track positions, is the problem. Universities are making their money off the backs of adjuncts, some of whom are paid as little as $1,500 a course. (Yes, that would be me; this was also cited in a Chronicle of Higher Education article that I will not link because you need a subscription to read it.) Tenure, in this situation, is the aspiring academic's best friend. While I agree with the article in that something has to change, I do not think tenure should disappear without adjuncts' rights being increased (livable wage, health benefits, etc.) - a point, again, that was missing.

"I honestly don't know what a lot of academics do a lot of the time," says Taylor.

Frankly I couldn't believe this statement. When I entered my MA program, I realized suddenly, forcefully, how much academics must do - either those who are tenured, on the tenure track, or adjuncts. Beyond continual research and writing, they develop new classes, sit on many committees, are advisers for both undergraduates and graduate students (and in a school with a PhD program, this requires a large investment of time and energy), run programs (in English, for instance, a reading series or publication). And then they teach. An appreciation of the full spectrum of responsibilities for a professor is key to this debate. I don't think that tenure does students a disservice; their tenured professors have the energy and security to fulfill the task of teaching to the best of their ability. A student in a large class taught by an overworked, underpaid, unappreciated adjunct will most likely not have the same experience.

Would you take a 35% pay increase and a 7- 10 year contract?

An increase from my adjunct salary? No, absolutely not. I can make more money filling burgers in either case. However, a redefined system that replaces adjuncts (or the majority of these positions) with a 7-10 year contract that has a respectful wage and benefits is completely reasonable. Only after the adjunct problem is solved would I advocate for the end of tenure.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Alette

[Eigen]

I have problems with several points in that article, but one of the most significant was the point about universities paying tenured professors out of their endowments thus "freezing up otherwise liquid endowment funds".

From my experience, most full professorships are endowed professorships- the monies in them are not liquid, but rather specifically earmarked for the hiring of a faculty member meeting specific requirements, usually including tenure. Whether you fill that faculty position or not, the endowment money cannot legally be used for any other means.

As to the end of Tenure, I personally like the tenure track/tenure system very much. I view it as paying my dues up front for long term job security down the road.

In many cases, it's very similar to graduate school as a whole- you take 4-7 (+1-4 post doc) years of pay that is much lower than you would have been making straight out of undergrad to get a much more secure, desirable job position. Tenure track is then a repeat of the same type of system.

Unlike the premise in the article, it's not that different from most other jobs, except for the fact that in many other fields it's an unwritten assurance of job security, while in academia it's contracted. If you enter a large company on the management track, you'll work much harder starting off to rise through the ranks, at which point you will receive greater benefits and job security.

The other point the article fails to illuminate sufficiently, in my opinion, is that even tenured professors often take large cuts in pay (relative to industry jobs) for the corresponding increase in job security that tenure brings. Most professors I know (sciences, primarily) could easily be making twice their current salaries in industry- but without the long term job security that tenure brings.

[TheDude]

I couldn't agree with all these points from both of you more.

I don't think you'd see Universities function the same if professors couldn't find job security. I also agree there is an adjunct problem, but like you mentioned I fail to see how scrapping tenure would solve that problem. The article is pretty insulting at points- like I said it had been articulated better in other sources in recent months.

[Eigen]

Exactly.

I think there are definitely things that need to be done to improve the current system, especially (as was pointed out) in the area of adjunct professors and instructors.

But I think job security as a whole needs to remain. It's awfully hard to commit to a multi-year research project if you're not sure how long you're going to be at an institution.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Eigen

[timuralp]

Without getting into the tenure discussion, I wanted to make one point about the adjuncts and lecturer positions. I feel that in a number of disciplines, after receiving the PhD, the only option is a career in academe, if one wishes to remain in the same field. As the number of positions, tenured or otherwise, is limited and doesn't grow very quickly (and, for tenured positions, the turnover rate is very low), there is an abundance of people possessing the degrees in the field with no jobs. I think that if there were very few people taking up the adjunct position, the salary and benefits would increase. As is, it seems there is a large supply and not very high demand, hence low benefits and salary. The universities have no incentive to increase compensation, as long as that's the case.

I don't see a good way to solve this supply/demand problem, aside from cutting back on PhD programs. Of course, no one would go for that anyway. I'd be curious what the other opinions on that are.

To just comment on the article, I have personally seen a number of cases where the faculty stopped publishing after tenure and, sometimes, even putting any effort in teaching (not sure if they ever did, however). To me, a number of the concerns raised, rang very true. I'm not sure which parts of it were terribly insulting though. I guess the comment on what academics do with their time is most likely, but, in reality, some really don't do anything with their time.

// I edited this post to include more thoughts, rather than making another one

I think the job security issues are real, but I don't think they're irresolvable through contracts. A request for early contract extension when a multi-year grant is received is a possibility, for instance. At that point, the university has real money incentive to retain the researcher.

Edited August 12, 2010 by timuralp

[Eigen]

Without getting into the tenure discussion, I wanted to make one point about the adjuncts and lecturer positions. I feel that in a number of disciplines, after receiving the PhD, the only option is a career in academe, if one wishes to remain in the same field. As the number of positions, tenured or otherwise, is limited and doesn't grow very quickly (and, for tenured positions, the turnover rate is very low), there is an abundance of people possessing the degrees in the field with no jobs. I think that if there were very few people taking up the adjunct position, the salary and benefits would increase. As is, it seems there is a large supply and not very high demand, hence low benefits and salary. The universities have no incentive to increase compensation, as long as that's the case.

Perhaps it's just location, but the majority of the adjunct positions at my undergraduate institution/local community college would remain unfilled for semesters at a time.

The lack of demand didn't make the compensation increase, at all.

Accordingly, I'm not familiar with disciplines with no industry route (sciences and engineering are what I know best), and the situation is still no better in those, even though an industry position can earn 2-4 times that of a corresponding academic position. This has even led to the almost complete die-off of some subfields (say, analytical chemistry), as an entry level industry job makes well over 100k per year, as opposed to the 40-60k starting salary in academia.

[timuralp]

Perhaps it's just location, but the majority of the adjunct positions at my undergraduate institution/local community college would remain unfilled for semesters at a time.

The lack of demand didn't make the compensation increase, at all.

Interesting. At the two institutions I was familiar with, where the practice was popular, there were always many (> 5) candidates for the positions and they were staffed come first day of the semester. Sometimes, they were not staffed with well qualified people, but that's a different story. Your point, though, is that there just is not enough emphasis to make the positions competitive and focus on filling the teaching needs.

Accordingly, I'm not familiar with disciplines with no industry route (sciences and engineering are what I know best), and the situation is still no better in those, even though an industry position can earn 2-4 times that of a corresponding academic position. This has even led to the almost complete die-off of some subfields (say, analytical chemistry), as an entry level industry job makes well over 100k per year, as opposed to the 40-60k starting salary in academia.

I know in CS, associate professors are looking at 100k+ at some schools and start around 70k, I believe. At least in my field, I feel that having options is a great thing and there is less of a flood of talent, as the industry happily gobbles up the willing students. In the end, I hope people don't pick the world of academe for money or vacations or job stability. I know that's a bit naive, but it'd be great if it were true

[Eigen]

http://3.bp.blogspot...00-h/cupahr.jpg

Here's a recent chart showing average university salaries in the US (4 year institutions). It's quite enlightening.

Private universities pay much, much more than state universities.

My adviser (undergrad) got payed iirc, around 50k as an assistant professor after 34 years. It's been bumped up slightly now that he's department head, but not much. To compare, he could be making an easy 100k in industry, likely considerably more with his years of experience.

The department had two endowed professorships available, I think they made around 70k? But neither was close to retiring.

The average (from the above chart) in physical sciences starts at around 56k, with instructors making around 43k. Compare this to graduate stipends around 25-30k and post-doc salaries of around 40-50k, and industry starting salaries of 80-120k, depending on the field and experience.

I should add that the adjunct positions that were unfilled were often passed off to graduate students, so I guess you could say they were filled- but they were not filled as per the requirements advertised (an actual degree).

Edited August 12, 2010 by Eigen

[Thanks4Downvoting]

Quote from article: "Don't abolish tenure altogether, says Trower. Just rework it. Create a tenure track that explicitly rewards teaching."

From my perspective, this is pivotal, and, I would think, would be welcomed by academia as well.

[Eigen]

Quote from article: "Don't abolish tenure altogether, says Trower. Just rework it. Create a tenure track that explicitly rewards teaching."

From my perspective, this is pivotal, and, I would think, would be welcomed by academia as well.

It should be noted that some schools already have this.

Our math department, with an established and well recognized PhD program, had two tracks to tenure: a teaching track, and a research track. And they weren't the only department at the school.

The teaching track required not only teaching, but also involvement in committees (scholarship appeal, student based things), as well as advising.

I think such a system makes a stronger department by supporting both the teaching faculty and research faculty in their areas of expertise.

[timuralp]

http://3.bp.blogspot...00-h/cupahr.jpg

Here's a recent chart showing average university salaries in the US (4 year institutions). It's quite enlightening.

Private universities pay much, much more than state universities.

My adviser (undergrad) got payed iirc, around 50k as an assistant professor after 34 years. It's been bumped up slightly now that he's department head, but not much. To compare, he could be making an easy 100k in industry, likely considerably more with his years of experience.

The department had two endowed professorships available, I think they made around 70k? But neither was close to retiring.

The average (from the above chart) in physical sciences starts at around 56k, with instructors making around 43k. Compare this to graduate stipends around 25-30k and post-doc salaries of around 40-50k, and industry starting salaries of 80-120k, depending on the field and experience.

I should add that the adjunct positions that were unfilled were often passed off to graduate students, so I guess you could say they were filled- but they were not filled as per the requirements advertised (an actual degree).

Out of curiosity, what's the variance in this data? You mentioned that private schools pay more, but what about top public research schools? Is the data skewed at all by the disproportionate number of smaller schools?

I don't know about other fields and the opportunities there, but at least in CS the money is not the biggest problem in drawing talent. Consulting is a very common way to supplement the salary and it's not uncommon to turn research projects into entrepreneurial ventures during a sabbatical.

[Eigen]

If you look at the bottom, it gives the number of schools, and I think it may break them down further if you follow the link.

There was quite a discussion on the PhD forums when this first came out.... I'm not sure exactly as to the variance, but it seemed like the salaries were applicable to many of the posters there.

From what I can tell, a lot of it (assuming we stay in the US) is geographical as well, with public universities in the northeast paying more than corresponding schools elsewhere. I'm relatively certain that in most states, the "state schools" professors are considered state employees to a degree, and as such, pay is relatively constant across the smaller and larger universities. In Louisiana, for instance, the base pay is purely a function of degree and experience. The major difference that I could see between the big research university (LSU) and some of the smaller programs (ULM, Southeastern) is in the "research stipend" that is given to nearly every professor at LSU, and more sparingly to those at other schools. Still, we're talking about minor variance among the state universities. I'm not sure how much that changes in other states.

Sadly, consulting in many of the sciences has died to a large degree- there are still some opportunities, but they are not common.

[TheDude]

Are 7 year contracts viable means of securitizing one's future? It seems like universities can just roll these new policies into place and if people don't like it they will find someone else.

As some one looking to get a Ph.D, and applying this year, I've thought damn hard about the lost wages that will count for something while I am amidst that schooling or what else I could do now in private sector work, etc. I'm mad.

Edited August 14, 2010 by musicforfun

[timuralp]

If you look at the bottom, it gives the number of schools, and I think it may break them down further if you follow the link.

There was quite a discussion on the PhD forums when this first came out.... I'm not sure exactly as to the variance, but it seemed like the salaries were applicable to many of the posters there.

Looking at the executive summary, there was no variance mentioned. The survey covered 822 schools, with only 19% being doctorate granting institutions. I don't think the averages tell the whole picture here and I couldn't find the data by the degree granting status. I think in averaging quite a bit of information was lost. Maybe some of these concerns are addressed in the full report, but I don't really want to pay for it.

From what I can tell, a lot of it (assuming we stay in the US) is geographical as well, with public universities in the northeast paying more than corresponding schools elsewhere. I'm relatively certain that in most states, the "state schools" professors are considered state employees to a degree, and as such, pay is relatively constant across the smaller and larger universities. In Louisiana, for instance, the base pay is purely a function of degree and experience. The major difference that I could see between the big research university (LSU) and some of the smaller programs (ULM, Southeastern) is in the "research stipend" that is given to nearly every professor at LSU, and more sparingly to those at other schools. Still, we're talking about minor variance among the state universities. I'm not sure how much that changes in other states.

I just did a quick comparison between UMass Dartmouth and UMass Amherst and an assistant professor in CS at Amherst made ~118,000 and a full professor at Dartmouth made ~114,000. Another full professor at UMass made ~122,000. The difference between department chairs at the two schools was: almost 90,000! (~120,000 vs ~209,000). It seems to me there is a big difference. I'd expect it to vary by state, but clearly in certain states it's big.

Sadly, consulting in many of the sciences has died to a large degree- there are still some opportunities, but they are not common.

I guess computer science is one of those. I know the same is true about a lot of engineering fields.

Are 7 year contracts viable means of securitizing one's future? It seems like universities can just roll these new policies into place and if people don't like it they will find someone else.

As some one looking to get a Ph.D, and applying this year, I've thought damn hard about the lost wages that will count for something while I am amidst that schooling or what else I could do now in private sector work, etc. I'm mad.

Universities tried to get rid of tenure and often ended up with rebelling faculties. Politics in the academe are very tricky. Personally, I think 5-7 year contracts with the early extension option would be great and would also relieve the stress of the pre-tenure years - something I find to be completely backwards.

If you're mad already about the lost wages, maybe it'd be worthwhile to purse the said wages? I feel that money can't be a consideration when deciding grad school vs job.

Edited August 14, 2010 by timuralp

[TheDude]

Naw, I get more upset when people ask what I am doing with my life and I have to phrase it in some way other than pursuing more school. "When will you finally get a real job....?" I hear that from the most intellectually stiffened! That is what makes me get angry about the lost wages for what I want to pursue. I am certainly not expecting to get rich with a Ph.D, rather just be comfortable. My family didn't have a lot when I was younger, and I've seen minimal wages raise a small family.., so I don't want for much. 1) Be able to pay off my college debt 2) buy a small house 3) feed my kids 4) do work that matters to a degree and that allows me to be somewhat creative in starting new projects, etc.

Can someone here explain tenure track (teaching)? I understand the conventional route but someone mentioned a differentiation of the two above.

Edited August 14, 2010 by musicforfun

[ScreamingHairyArmadillo]

Not a fan of the 5-7 year contracts. What about us wee grad students who would be left with no advisor or forced to switch when our first advisor is on their last year? No guarantees for their renewal.

[timuralp]

Not a fan of the 5-7 year contracts. What about us wee grad students who would be left with no advisor or forced to switch when our first advisor is on their last year? No guarantees for their renewal.

By that logic no grad student should ever work with an untenured professor, as they could not get it at the review. No guarantees there either. However, a lot of students work with young professors and do fine with it.

[UnlikelyGrad]

Can someone here explain tenure track (teaching)? I understand the conventional route but someone mentioned a differentiation of the two above.

Well, the way tenure works at the universities I'm familiar with, the bulk of the tenure process is consumed with research. It's usually a 3-step thing:

(1) The department decides whether it wants to give you tenure or not. This is the only level at which your teaching ability may be taken into consideration, but usually they just make sure you've been pulling in the research dollars, have been mentoring enough grad students through to graduation, etc.

(2) External support: you have to drum up what are essentially letters of recommendation from people who are in your field but outside the school, saying that your research is interesting, novel, and potentially world-class. These LoRs have to be from pretty big names in order to count. [When my sister was going through this, she joked that there are only half a dozen people in each field who qualify to write these letters for everyone else in the world--her career goal was never to become one of them.]

(3) The provost (usually) of the school looks over the department's recommendation, the LoRs, and issues an official tenure decision.

To have a teaching-track tenure decision, you'd have to cut out step #2. What would you substitute instead? I'm not sure. I certainly don't think that they could use student evaluations of a prof's teaching, because students, at least freshman/sophomores, are pretty lame about knowing what makes someone a good teacher. So maybe they'd have evaluations from other profs who'd sat in on classes--I don't know.

I do like the idea of teaching-track tenure, though. Last spring I was lecture TA for one of our departmental research superstars, who was teaching freshman chem. She did a decent job, not fantastic but well enough, and she really made an effort to reach out to the students. But behind closed doors, she often complained to me: "It's a waste of my time to teach this class! Every hour I spend on this lecture is an hour I can't spend writing grant proposals!" (Her funding rate was about 5x that of my current advisor, and might have been the highest of anyone in the department.)

I loved working with this lady--she was a fantastic mentor for me. I can see that the department was wise to keep her around because she had both the funds and the smarts (and the heart) to mentor a lot of grad students successfully. But having her teach freshman chem might have been a waste of her time...

On the other hand, my all-time favorite professor to take classes from was an older guy who'd already ended his research career. It was clear that he liked teaching, and from what I've read he burned out on the research fairly early on in his career. I think he would have been much happier going for teaching-track tenure, had that been available. Did he bring in a lot of research funding to the department? No. However, he did teach one undergraduate core course (fall, spring, and summer), two grad-level core courses, and one popular grad-level elective course. Given the number of times that my advisor has wailed, "OMG! What are we going to do when he retires?" I think he definitely provides a valuable service.

[ScreamingHairyArmadillo]

By that logic no grad student should ever work with an untenured professor, as they could not get it at the review. No guarantees there either. However, a lot of students work with young professors and do fine with it.

Well, good point. But with everyone on renewable contracts, the risk would just be that much more prevalent.

[Eigen]

Can someone here explain tenure track (teaching)? I understand the conventional route but someone mentioned a differentiation of the two above.

Sorry, I missed this earlier.

I was the one that mentioned the teaching based tenure track my undergrad university had.

I'm sadly not up on the details so well as I am on research based tenure, but I know it was based off of a (usually) increased teaching load relative to research, and involvement in student based activities outside of class- ie, scholarship appeals committees, curriculum oversight committees, undergraduate advising, etc.

One of my favorite math teachers got tenure through this, and she was doing next to no research- she had no grad students of her own, but was on almost everyone's committee.

She's assistant department chair now, and is expected to be chair in a few years after the current one retires.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Eigen

[juilletmercredi]

I, for one, am totally on board with eliminating tenure and going for contracts that can be negotiated from anything from 3 to 10 years. I've got several personal and more general reasons. Personally, I'm a young academic in my mid-twenties who'd love to teach at the college/university level - I want to teach undergraduates psychology, and especially to love research and usher them into research careers. Problem: my fiance is a military member. His chances of moving from base to base his entire career are a lot lower than a lot of other job specialties (he works on a special plane that is only stationed at two bases) but they are there nonetheless. If I had the opportunity to sign 3-5 year contracts to be a university professor, that would be great. Under the current system it's possible that I could go for a t-t position only to have to leave it 3 or 4 years in because we have to move.

I think 7-10 year contracts are better for more stable young academics, because that gives you enough time to establish a lab and some connections and relationships with the students at the school, settle in, and be a real asset to the school - but still have mobility when/if your needs change in 10 years, you decide you want to move, your spouse find a great job in a new city, your kid wants to attend a prestigious boarding school 1000 miles away, whatever. Personally, as a young academic, the idea of tenure does not attract me to a job. Job security is nice, but I prefer a balance with flexibility. And I certainly would rather not commit to living in a certain place for my entire life. What if the city goes downhill, or the cost of living shoots up and I can't afford it anymore, or crime skyrockets or something?

I'd rather get paid 35% more (and I believe they mean a 35% increase on a t-t professor's salary, Alette, not an adjuncts) and have a 7 year contract.

For a more moderate view, though (I realize that there are a lot of young academics who would balk at losing lifelong job security, although it's not appealing to me) I can see a system working where maybe 1/3 of all positions are tenure-track and the other 2/3 are contracted positions for 7 to 10 years - with no adjuncts. All positions benefited and properly paid a salary.

I'm also in favor of a reworking of the tenure system so that it rewards teaching and service for those who are more interested in that than research.