South Carolina abolishing tenure

[Wahoo Redux]

I would like to believe this would lead (eventually) to a really difficult time hiring faculty. But give adjunct pools, I doubt that would happen. (Apologies for dipping into the adjunct fire here)

We'll get to test the claims that people on the adjunct hamster wheel are every bit as qualified as tenure-track/tenured faculty.

Be fair.

I have never heard anyone say or post that.

Usually I hear the opposite, at least from academics.  Or more specifically, I hear that it is actually hard to populate classes with highly qualified people when picking from the adjunct pool.

Maybe not on the forum, but I read that kind of claim all the time in messaging from adjunct unions, and statements to the press.

Fair enough.

Oftentimes it is true that the adjunct pools have scatterings of equal or better qualified people than the faculty at a great many non-R1 schools.

Oftentimes not.

I think the whole scenario is simply one more step in the dismantling of our higher ed system.

[Wahoo Redux]

My comment upthread wasn't related to the tenure part. I'm sure that the STEM folks can function with long-term contracts. In fact, many already do. Rather, it is the teach at least two courses part. Depending on how that is implemented, we are talking about researchers who will REALLY want to be someplace else. For the majority of people on this board (including me) that would not be an issue. The STEM reproachers at a research intensive university simply couldn't get the research they do done with that load.

Our academic researchers in the sciences are incredibly important to society.

I don't know why we can't capitalize on that message.

[Hibush]

I would like to believe this would lead (eventually) to a really difficult time hiring faculty. But give adjunct pools, I doubt that would happen. (Apologies for dipping into the adjunct fire here)

Some of us are looking at perilous jobs scenarios at our home institutions.  There will be no dearth of humanities academics seeking jobs in the near future.

I suspect this part of the reason SC can do this.

Perhaps they will be testing the idea of a public liberal arts college for South Carolina as a consequence of this. Excellent, if desparate, professors exclusively in fields with poor career alternatives.

I just got a note from an alumna who said that the market for PhDs is really tight; her biotech-related company is not coming close to filling all the jobs they have and it is really limiting their growth. They may be recruiting in South Carolina.

[Wahoo Redux]

I would like to believe this would lead (eventually) to a really difficult time hiring faculty. But give adjunct pools, I doubt that would happen. (Apologies for dipping into the adjunct fire here)

Some of us are looking at perilous jobs scenarios at our home institutions.  There will be no dearth of humanities academics seeking jobs in the near future.

I suspect this part of the reason SC can do this.

Perhaps they will be testing the idea of a public liberal arts college for South Carolina as a consequence of this. Excellent, if desparate, professors exclusively in fields with poor career alternatives.

I just got a note from an alumna who said that the market for PhDs is really tight; her biotech-related company is not coming close to filling all the jobs they have and it is really limiting their growth. They may be recruiting in South Carolina.

And yet more attenuation of higher ed.

[Parasaurolophus]

So, how does one get the five-year employment contract? Be on a tenure-like track? Get reviewed every five years?

My guess is that it would or will be a different type of tenure, not so secure, but pretty damn secure.

It also depends on how salaries end up being calculated. Without tenure, the concept of a salary as such may also go out the window, so that it's more strongly tethered to the number of courses one actually teaches (that sounds kind of likely to me, given the emphasis on increasing the minimum teaching load). At that point, even if the per-course pay is high and the benefits are good (and they probably will be) you're really at the mercy of enrollments. All it takes is a policy from on-high that courses enrolled at 76% of the cap and below will be cancelled, and you're on pretty thin ice.

(I speak from experience here.)

Which, for teaching undergraduates, and the specific numbers aside, is as it should be.

I mean, I dunno. It introduces serious instability into your employment: you basically don't know what your salary will be until the add/drop period is over in the last semester you're teaching. It could easily fluctuate by, like, $20k if two classes get cancelled (depending on your per-course salary, of course); similarly, you could end up with having none of your classes cancelled, but a senior colleague loses 2 and because he has seniority, he automatically gets two from a junior colleague, so you get poached (and if that senior colleague is a problem, those poached classes might get cancelled too!). And unless you've got a guaranteed minimum load, you might face serious under-loads some years.

That's not a very attractive situation to be in. It makes some sense, in the abstract, because you don't want to be stuck paying people full-time salary when they're underloaded year-over-year. But the specific numbers matter a lot: if a course of 26 gets cancelled even though your break-even point is enrollment of 13, you're shooting everyone in the foot.

[dismalist]

So, how does one get the five-year employment contract? Be on a tenure-like track? Get reviewed every five years?

My guess is that it would or will be a different type of tenure, not so secure, but pretty damn secure.

It also depends on how salaries end up being calculated. Without tenure, the concept of a salary as such may also go out the window, so that it's more strongly tethered to the number of courses one actually teaches (that sounds kind of likely to me, given the emphasis on increasing the minimum teaching load). At that point, even if the per-course pay is high and the benefits are good (and they probably will be) you're really at the mercy of enrollments. All it takes is a policy from on-high that courses enrolled at 76% of the cap and below will be cancelled, and you're on pretty thin ice.

(I speak from experience here.)

Which, for teaching undergraduates, and the specific numbers aside, is as it should be.

I mean, I dunno. It introduces serious instability into your employment: you basically don't know what your salary will be until the add/drop period is over in the last semester you're teaching. It could easily fluctuate by, like, $20k if two classes get cancelled (depending on your per-course salary, of course); similarly, you could end up with having none of your classes cancelled, but a senior colleague loses 2 and because he has seniority, he automatically gets two from a junior colleague, so you get poached (and if that senior colleague is a problem, those poached classes might get cancelled too!). And unless you've got a guaranteed minimum load, you might face serious under-loads some years.

That's not a very attractive situation to be in. It makes some sense, in the abstract, because you don't want to be stuck paying people full-time salary when they're underloaded year-over-year. But the specific numbers matter a lot: if a course of 26 gets cancelled even though your break-even point is enrollment of 13, you're shooting everyone in the foot.

Yeah: It's a reallocation of risk to the instructor and, on net, away from the student, and away from the taxpayer. I like it!

It's efficient. There is no reason an instructor of a course in Underwater Basket Weaving should be insulated from the risk that not enough people like his product. We don't have job guarantees for plumbers and electricians, either, precisely because somebody else would be paying.

[mleok]

Yeah: It's a reallocation of risk to the instructor and, on net, away from the student, and away from the taxpayer. I like it!

It's efficient. There is no reason an instructor of a course in Underwater Basket Weaving should be insulated from the risk that not enough people like his product. We don't have job guarantees for plumbers and electricians, either, precisely because somebody else would be paying.

Well, every highly-skilled individual I know who has chosen to forgo a regular salary to be a consultant charges a substantially higher hourly rate because they are absorbing that risk. Again, such a model might work for fields where the practitioners have few other opportunities, but it will decimate their faculty in the STEM fields that attract students because of their lucrative job prospects. I'm sure no self-respecting economist would work under those kinds of conditions either.

The reality is that for universities who actually care about the calibre of researchers they hire, tenure is an efficient method of attracting world class talent at below market costs. Research universities do not advocate for tenure out of the kindness of their heart, they do it because it benefits them.

[dismalist]

Yeah: It's a reallocation of risk to the instructor and, on net, away from the student, and away from the taxpayer. I like it!

It's efficient. There is no reason an instructor of a course in Underwater Basket Weaving should be insulated from the risk that not enough people like his product. We don't have job guarantees for plumbers and electricians, either, precisely because somebody else would be paying.

Well, every highly-skilled individual I know who has chosen to forgo a regular salary to be a consultant charges a substantially higher hourly rate because they are absorbing that risk. Again, such a model might work for fields where the practitioners have few other opportunities, but it will decimate their faculty in the STEM fields that attract students because of their lucrative job prospects. I'm sure no self-respecting economist would work under those kinds of conditions either.

Self respecting economist doesn't have to! :-)

No question that salaries will rise, though perhaps not much if the 5-year plans mimic tenure as we know it.

Research is a different matter, though tenure is not so desirable there. I'm thinking only of undergraduate education.

[mleok]

Self respecting economist doesn't have to! :-)

Well, that's my point, neither do competent STEM faculty.

[dismalist]

Yeah: It's a reallocation of risk to the instructor and, on net, away from the student, and away from the taxpayer. I like it!

It's efficient. There is no reason an instructor of a course in Underwater Basket Weaving should be insulated from the risk that not enough people like his product. We don't have job guarantees for plumbers and electricians, either, precisely because somebody else would be paying.

Well, every highly-skilled individual I know who has chosen to forgo a regular salary to be a consultant charges a substantially higher hourly rate because they are absorbing that risk. Again, such a model might work for fields where the practitioners have few other opportunities, but it will decimate their faculty in the STEM fields that attract students because of their lucrative job prospects. I'm sure no self-respecting economist would work under those kinds of conditions either.

Self respecting economist doesn't have to! :-)

No question that salaries will rise, though perhaps not much if the 5-year plans mimic tenure as we know it.

Research is a different matter, though tenure is not so desirable there. I'm thinking only of undergraduate education.

[marshwiggle]

So, how does one get the five-year employment contract? Be on a tenure-like track? Get reviewed every five years?

My guess is that it would or will be a different type of tenure, not so secure, but pretty damn secure.

The most plausible scenario I can see is a review at the 3 year mark.

• "Green"- you're good and your contract gets extended for another 3 years to make a new 5 year contract.
• "Yellow" - you need to improve and will be re-evaluated at the 4 year mark.
• "Red" - work on your resume, because you'll be unemployed in *2 years.

*or 1 year, if you're at the 4 year mark after a "yellow" the year before.

[mleok]

Research is a different matter, though tenure is not so desirable there. I'm thinking only of undergraduate education.

Well, at the University of California system, we have tenure, but it is paired with a system of post-tenure review that is tied to a robust system of merit increases. In particular, it has over $100K in salary increases from the lowest tenured step to the top of the salary scale, which is a pretty decent incentive for even tenured faculty to stay productive. Tenure is not sinecure, even if it is portrayed as such by some segments.

[dismalist]

Research is a different matter, though tenure is not so desirable there. I'm thinking only of undergraduate education.

Well, at the University of California system, we have tenure, but it is paired with a system of post-tenure review that is tied to a robust system of merit increases. In particular, it has over $100K in salary increases from the lowest tenured step to the top of the salary scale, which is a pretty decent incentive for even tenured faculty to stay productive. Tenure is not sinecure, even if it is portrayed as such by some segments.

That sounds alright for incentives, but is completely independent of tenure.

[downer]

There must be good ways to abolish tenure and bad ways to do it. It would be great to find ways to preserve academic freedom of speech while avoiding the problems of people becoming unmotivated to push themselves that go with tenure. And of course, separate out the politics from promotion decisions.

It's hard to imagine that SC will do it well.

[mleok]

Research is a different matter, though tenure is not so desirable there. I'm thinking only of undergraduate education.

Well, at the University of California system, we have tenure, but it is paired with a system of post-tenure review that is tied to a robust system of merit increases. In particular, it has over $100K in salary increases from the lowest tenured step to the top of the salary scale, which is a pretty decent incentive for even tenured faculty to stay productive. Tenure is not sinecure, even if it is portrayed as such by some segments.

That sounds alright for incentives, but is completely independent of tenure.

Well, it's a two step process, the possibility of tenure allows academia to compete for talent that it would otherwise lose to industry, and the presence of a robust system of merit increases incentivizes tenured faculty to remain productive. Let's turn this question around, why would a self-respecting economist stay in academia when they could be paid substantially more in the private sector?