CHE: Tenured, Trapped, and Miserable in the Humanities

[Wahoo Redux]

It doesn't tell you that the humanities are dying and humanities professors are superfluous, or any of the rest of the sad trumpet stuff.

The real questions ar why humanities professors are so into these lame narratives combining personal stagnation and institutional decline and why everyone else weirdly buys it.

I don't think the despondency comes from within. What we do is cool.  What we do is very worthwhile and important.

It is watching the adjunctification of the profession (which hits the humanities hardest), the slow decline of the majors, the sunsetting, and now I personally am seeing some retrenching and I am facing the possibility of nonrenewal.  There is earnest disrespect from some camps.  Worst of all is the dearth of job opportunity.   There is no real need for producing PhDs except at perhaps a handful of Ivy League programs.

The humanities body is just outmoded and unhealthy, the death of an empire.

[Parasaurolophus]

You all might be interested to note that this piece is by our old friend William Pannapacker!


To my mind, the popularity of someone like Jordan Peterson, who just repackages Jung and Joseph Campbell, is a testament to the fact that there's a thirst out there for the kind of stuff that's studied in the humanities (though of course we do much more--and better!--work than those two did). But the branding has become toxic. Or maybe it's that we apply actual standards, I don't know. Regardless, it seems clear to me that there are a lot of people out there who want to explore the kind of stuff we do, but who aren't able or willing to get it anywhere except from buffoons and charlatans.

[marshwiggle]

Regardless, it seems clear to me that there are a lot of people out there who want to explore the kind of stuff we do, but who aren't able or willing to get it anywhere except from buffoons and charlatans.

If that's the case, is it true in other areas like STEM? If so, what would be good examples? If not, why not?

[Parasaurolophus]

Regardless, it seems clear to me that there are a lot of people out there who want to explore the kind of stuff we do, but who aren't able or willing to get it anywhere except from buffoons and charlatans.

If that's the case, is it true in other areas like STEM? If so, what would be good examples? If not, why not?

I dunno, you tell me. Are there areas of STEM that are systematically publicly devalued? That might be a place to start looking.

[mahagonny]

In a way, tenure is like rent control in Manhattan. Some economists will decry rent control, saying it incentivizes staying in apartments that people have outgrown, and deincentivizes landlords from improving the apartments that are already rented. Having lived in New York, I know there is an element of truth to both of these criticisms. However, the fundamental issue is the lack of affordable housing stock in Manhattan. Sure I might want to leave  (say) the studio five-floor walkup I've been living in the East Village for decades and move to an apartment that is closer to the train, has an elevator, and a bedroom. But unless I move to Trenton, I probably won't find one I can afford. Rent control at least makes it possible for me to keep my current apartment.

Similarly,  I might want to move to a better school. But the reason I don't is not that I have tenure, but that there are no other jobs out there. So tenure at least lets me stay at my current employer.

People who cannot get a rent-controlled apartment (which are most people who haven't been living in the same apartment since the 1980s) may resent those who have one, but it isn't rent control that is keeping them from finding an affordable Manhattan apartment. If every rent-controlled tenant were evicted tomorrow, it would just mean that the landlords would raise rents and Manhattan would be home to only luxury apartments. People who cannot get a tenure track job (most PhDs since the 1980s) may resent those who can. But if tenure were abolished, then all it would mean is that most jobs would be converted to casual (part time, lecturer, etc) positions and academia would become one vast adjunct jungle. In both cases, it would mean making the situation a more intense version of what it already is, and making life less livable for many people.

Of course there is more to tenure than the economics, such as academic freedom. And just as choosing an apartment involves more than just the apartment itself (the neighbors, etc), a teaching job also involves certain intangibles (the student body).

Exactly. The solution is to build more apartments or create more tenure-track positions, not abolish the whole system.

Which would have the effect of shrinking the adjunct population to a level that is disparate, not in close communication with each other, therefore unable to make any noise, achieve any solidarity, or call into question the ethical viability of the whole system. Which was the original plan back around 1980. What went wrong?

[dismalist]

Regardless, it seems clear to me that there are a lot of people out there who want to explore the kind of stuff we do, but who aren't able or willing to get it anywhere except from buffoons and charlatans.

If that's the case, is it true in other areas like STEM? If so, what would be good examples? If not, why not?

Its seems clear to me that almost no one wants to understand real economics.

--The macro or monetary part is on the mind of the government and its organs, the financial markets, and accordingly, many outlets for non-specialists. It is important, but in public it is really, really bad in quality. It seems part of the attraction is religious, trying to predict miracles.

--The very different micro foundation is all about budget constraints, substitution possibilities, and choice. This is never in the popular digital press, presumably on account everybody hates the implied constraints.

No one wants to explore this stuff! What posters should know is: Economics is about incentives. The rest is commentary.

[mleok]

I say it de-incentivizes leaving a school where your fit is no longer the best, because to do so starts the arduous seven year probationary clock all over again.

That's bullshit, people move with tenure all the time. For that matter, I was offered a tenured associate professorship when I was a tenure-track assistant professor at a comparably ranked institution. It is a very rare move which requires one to restart the entire tenure clock.

[Wahoo Redux]

Regardless, it seems clear to me that there are a lot of people out there who want to explore the kind of stuff we do, but who aren't able or willing to get it anywhere except from buffoons and charlatans.

If that's the case, is it true in other areas like STEM? If so, what would be good examples? If not, why not?

Its seems clear to me that almost no one wants to understand real economics.

--The macro or monetary part is on the mind of the government and its organs, the financial markets, and accordingly, many outlets for non-specialists. It is important, but in public it is really, really bad in quality. It seems part of the attraction is religious, trying to predict miracles.

--The very different micro foundation is all about budget constraints, substitution possibilities, and choice. This is never in the popular digital press, presumably on account everybody hates the implied constraints.

No one wants to explore this stuff! What posters should know is: Economics is about incentives. The rest is commentary.

Actually, that is pretty interesting.

[apl68]

Regardless, it seems clear to me that there are a lot of people out there who want to explore the kind of stuff we do, but who aren't able or willing to get it anywhere except from buffoons and charlatans.

I know church pastors who feel the same way about the "market" for what they have to offer.

[Sun_Worshiper]

There are way more assistant than associate or full jobs, at least in my field. But good people move all the time. Key is to stay productive.

[mleok]

There are way more assistant than associate or full jobs, at least in my field. But good people move all the time. Key is to stay productive.

Sure, I think it's generally true that there are more tenure-track than tenured positions advertised, but even then, you're not really signing up for the full probationary period even if you move from a tenured position to a tenure-track one.

[Sun_Worshiper]

There are way more assistant than associate or full jobs, at least in my field. But good people move all the time. Key is to stay productive.

Sure, I think it's generally true that there are more tenure-track than tenured positions advertised, but even then, you're not really signing up for the full probationary period even if you move from a tenured position to a tenure-track one.

Sure. The people I am referring to who move on after tenure get hired to their new positions with tenure.

[Caracal]

I always tell students that if I thought of coming in to work every day as a choice I got to make, I probably wouldn't usually be there. When I'm getting in my car, I can't say that I'm often incredibly excited to talk to one group of students about the causes of the Great Depression, another about formerly enslaved refugees and the Union Army,  to two others about the Comanche and their southwest empire, and in between answer a million questions about when the exams will be graded (who knows? I'm always in class) meet with four students about their paper proposals, all of which are too broad. I'd sooner turn around .watch tv for the morning, and spend the afternoon trying to get rid of the ivy in the side yard.

The truth is I actually am going to enjoy a fair amount of that stuff once I'm there. I like talking about the causes of the Great Depression with students. I even enjoy some of the meetings. Some of it also remains unrewarding. Some individual class sections suck, sometimes the whole class just kind of sucks from the beginning of the semester to the end. Some of the students are frustrating, sometimes the larger structure is maddening.

There's a weird balance there. On one hand, you can't really be functional at your job unless you ignore most of your feelings about it in the moment. That's the basic part of adulting some of my students have trouble with. If you wake up and ask yourself "Do I feel like going to class or staying in bed" you are going to stay in bed. There's a certain amount of trudging that most people have to do. It can be hard to assess whether you are actually unhappy with your job or whether its just a crummy week in mid November.

[ciao_yall]

Personally, I am just bored with teaching. Students are great, but grading and paperwork and teaching the same darn topics over and over again has gotten stale.

I can't imagine doing any job for more than 5-10 years. There is the fun of the fresh challenge, the feeling once one has a routine, the sense that one is getting better and making improvements, and then... I dunno. Either need to create fresh challenges in the current job or look for something else.

[dismalist]

I plagiarized word of a survey concerning satisfaction with working in academia, not just humanities. It may be useful. Make of it what you will.

I merely think the 20% who chose the sunk cost fallacy should rethink their motives.

https://twitter.com/dkedrosky/status/1459190556005847045