Georgia abolishes tenure.

[marshwiggle]

The situation of no tenure and lousy pay also obtains and is characteristic of the polarization in job quality that produces essentially two markets. One market is what we might call the crap jobs. Poor pay, no security and little collegiality. Those employers struggle as they try to compete in the race to the bottom. The other market is the high end, where employees demand good pay and excellent working conditions. Those employers generally do well, and their productivity results in strong competititve position.

The University of Georgia is in the latter group, at least in my field. They compete internationally for the top faculty talent.   Some other state-supported schools in Georgia may well be in the former group, so the response to these changes may be different.

In this case, salaries will have to go up without tenure.

[mahagonny]

The situation of no tenure and lousy pay also obtains and is characteristic of the polarization in job quality that produces essentially two markets. One market is what we might call the crap jobs. Poor pay, no security and little collegiality. Those employers struggle as they try to compete in the race to the bottom. The other market is the high end, where employees demand good pay and excellent working conditions. Those employers generally do well, and their productivity results in strong competititve position.

The University of Georgia is in the latter group, at least in my field. They compete internationally for the top faculty talent.   Some other state-supported schools in Georgia may well be in the former group, so the response to these changes may be different.

In this case, salaries will have to go up without tenure.

Maybe so, but returning to the GA scenario: why would a professor who is so good you need to compete with other employers to get him interested in joining the faculty at your school, be worried about a more stringent post-tenure review that includes student success as a criterion?
The slogan 'they're not going to be able to attract good talent now' sounds to me more like standard union speak.

[ciao_yall]

The situation of no tenure and lousy pay also obtains and is characteristic of the polarization in job quality that produces essentially two markets. One market is what we might call the crap jobs. Poor pay, no security and little collegiality. Those employers struggle as they try to compete in the race to the bottom. The other market is the high end, where employees demand good pay and excellent working conditions. Those employers generally do well, and their productivity results in strong competititve position.

The University of Georgia is in the latter group, at least in my field. They compete internationally for the top faculty talent.   Some other state-supported schools in Georgia may well be in the former group, so the response to these changes may be different.

In this case, salaries will have to go up without tenure.

Maybe so, but returning to the GA scenario: why would a professor who is so good you need to compete with other employers to get him interested in joining the faculty at your school, be worried about a more stringent post-tenure review that includes student success as a criterion?
The slogan 'they're not going to be able to attract good talent now' sounds to me more like standard union speak.

In my region with very low unemployment rates, employers are competing for talent. Colleges offer tenure and job security in exchange for a lower salary.

If, like at a private sector employer, you have to worry about potentially being unemployed every few years for "at-will" reasons, why take a lower-paying job when a private sector employer will give you the same lack of job security for a much higher salary?

So, now colleges have a choice. Rebuild their faculty corps every year due to high turnover, or pay enough to keep faculty around long enough before the next fun, new, more lucrative opportunity comes along.

[marshwiggle]

If, like at a private sector employer, you have to worry about potentially being unemployed every few years for "at-will" reasons, why take a lower-paying job when a private sector employer will give you the same lack of job security for a much higher salary?

So, now colleges have a choice. Rebuild their faculty corps every year due to high turnover, or pay enough to keep faculty around long enough before the next fun, new, more lucrative opportunity comes along.

This will make a profound difference between disciplines based on the availability of lucrative jobs outside academia.

[ciao_yall]

If, like at a private sector employer, you have to worry about potentially being unemployed every few years for "at-will" reasons, why take a lower-paying job when a private sector employer will give you the same lack of job security for a much higher salary?

So, now colleges have a choice. Rebuild their faculty corps every year due to high turnover, or pay enough to keep faculty around long enough before the next fun, new, more lucrative opportunity comes along.

This will make a profound difference between disciplines based on the availability of lucrative jobs outside academia.

Yes and no. Someone with a PhD or Master's in a humanities field still has lots of transferable skills.

[Hibush]

The situation of no tenure and lousy pay also obtains and is characteristic of the polarization in job quality that produces essentially two markets. One market is what we might call the crap jobs. Poor pay, no security and little collegiality. Those employers struggle as they try to compete in the race to the bottom. The other market is the high end, where employees demand good pay and excellent working conditions. Those employers generally do well, and their productivity results in strong competititve position.

The University of Georgia is in the latter group, at least in my field. They compete internationally for the top faculty talent.   Some other state-supported schools in Georgia may well be in the former group, so the response to these changes may be different.

In this case, salaries will have to go up without tenure.

Maybe so, but returning to the GA scenario: why would a professor who is so good you need to compete with other employers to get him interested in joining the faculty at your school, be worried about a more stringent post-tenure review that includes student success as a criterion?

This is an excellent question. I believe there are two components.

In most R1s, there are ways of pruning the deadwood and lots of incentives not to become that. Post-tenure review isn't essential for this purpose. High performing faculty generally want the deadwood gone and replaced with someone who pulls their weight.
However, even productivity-related post-tenure review is often instituted as a somewhat punitive procedure. That doesn't go over well.

The other element is that the post-tenure review can be coopted. In some states, there is enthusiasm for using it to shut faculty up who are discovering or teaching things that are not consistent with what influential politicians wish were true or wish people believe.

In Georgia, the tone coming from the state definitely raises the latter concern.

[Hibush]

In a bit of cognitive dissonance, I just saw a tweet from @universityofga, with the tag line, As the birthplace of public higher education, we #CommitTo our future, to each other and to a better world.

[mleok]

In the UK Thatcher got rid of some major faculty protection, yet universities do largely keep on with business as usual.

Tell that to the mathematicians at the University of Leicester,

https://gowers.wordpress.com/2021/01/30/leicester-mathematics-under-threat-again/

[mamselle]

In a bit of cognitive dissonance, I just saw a tweet from @universityofga, with the tag line, As the birthplace of public higher education, we #CommitTo our future, to each other and to a better world.

I'm puzzled as to where they get the "birthplace of public higher education" line from....I can think of a few places that would have been founded before they were.

M.

[mahagonny]

The situation of no tenure and lousy pay also obtains and is characteristic of the polarization in job quality that produces essentially two markets. One market is what we might call the crap jobs. Poor pay, no security and little collegiality. Those employers struggle as they try to compete in the race to the bottom. The other market is the high end, where employees demand good pay and excellent working conditions. Those employers generally do well, and their productivity results in strong competititve position.

The University of Georgia is in the latter group, at least in my field. They compete internationally for the top faculty talent.   Some other state-supported schools in Georgia may well be in the former group, so the response to these changes may be different.

In this case, salaries will have to go up without tenure.

Maybe so, but returning to the GA scenario: why would a professor who is so good you need to compete with other employers to get him interested in joining the faculty at your school, be worried about a more stringent post-tenure review that includes student success as a criterion?

This is an excellent question. I believe there are two components.

In most R1s, there are ways of pruning the deadwood and lots of incentives not to become that. Post-tenure review isn't essential for this purpose. High performing faculty generally want the deadwood gone and replaced with someone who pulls their weight.
However, even productivity-related post-tenure review is often instituted as a somewhat punitive procedure. That doesn't go over well.

The other element is that the post-tenure review can be coopted. In some states, there is enthusiasm for using it to shut faculty up who are discovering or teaching things that are not consistent with what influential politicians wish were true or wish people believe.

In Georgia, the tone coming from the state definitely raises the latter concern.

So academics with tenure want people to believe that which is true, whereas red state politicians want people to believe things that support the party line. Is that it?

https://www.westernjournal.com/survey-44-liberals-think-cops-killed-around-1000-unarmed-black-men-2019-actually-25/

[marshwiggle]

The other element is that the post-tenure review can be coopted. In some states, there is enthusiasm for using it to shut faculty up who are discovering or teaching things that are not consistent with what influential politicians wish were true or wish people believe.

In Georgia, the tone coming from the state definitely raises the latter concern.

You mean people like J. Michael Bailey, who wrote The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism?

The book generated considerable controversy. The most detailed investigation into that controversy was reported by Alice Dreger, a bioethicist and historian, known for her activism in support of intersex rights. Dreger included additional details in Galileo's Middle Finger, an analysis of modern clashes between scientists and activists whose beliefs are challenged by them. In her documented account of the Bailey case, she concluded that a small group of self-styled activists tried to bury a politically challenging scientific theory by attacking Bailey: "These critics, rather than restrict themselves to the argument over the ideas, had charged Bailey with a whole host of serious crimes," but that "what they claimed about Bailey simply wasn't true."

[mleok]

In a bit of cognitive dissonance, I just saw a tweet from @universityofga, with the tag line, As the birthplace of public higher education, we #CommitTo our future, to each other and to a better world.

I'm puzzled as to where they get the "birthplace of public higher education" line from....I can think of a few places that would have been founded before they were.

M.

UGA received its state charter in 1785, one year before UNCCH in 1786, but they did not admit students until 1801, whereas UNCCH admited students in 1795. As for College of William and Mary, it was founded by royal charter in 1693, and was private until 1888.

[mleok]

In the University of California system, we have regular merit reviews, every two years for Associate Professors, and every three years for Full Professors, and if a tenured professor has two consecutive "no changes," as opposed to a regular merit advancement, then an action plan needs to be put together to get research, service, and teaching up to a satisfactory level, and if the goals of the action plan are not met, then the tenured faculty member can be terminated for incompetent performance. The difference is that the merit reviews are performed by other faculty members at the same or higher rank, and there is substantial involvement of faculty throughout the process, and it's not solely the purview of a department chair/head or dean.

On the plus side, the regular merit reviews are also associated with merit increases in salary as we advance through the step system.

[Hibush]

In the University of California system, we have regular merit reviews, every two years for Associate Professors, and every three years for Full Professors, and if a tenured professor has two consecutive "no changes," as opposed to a regular merit advancement, then an action plan needs to be put together to get research, service, and teaching up to a satisfactory level, and if the goals of the action plan are not met, then the tenured faculty member can be terminated for incompetent performance. The difference is that the merit reviews are performed by other faculty members at the same or higher rank, and there is substantial involvement of faculty throughout the process, and it's not solely the purview of a department chair/head or dean.

On the plus side, the regular merit reviews are also associated with merit increases in salary as we advance through the step system.

This is valuable detail. A widespread idea seems to be that tenure makes one immediatly unaccoutable, and I don't know that to be the case anywhere. Reviewing your progress and plans with your chair and reporting to the dean seem pretty basic. Getting a merit raise on top is a good incentive to take it seriously.

[Wahoo Redux]

We are the era which will effectively end higher ed as we know it.

We should just go business and engineering and hourly wages.