Final nail in the coffin for tenure in Florida

[Sun_Worshiper]

What people outside the academy don't get about tenure is that the job security it offers is a job benefit - not so different from PTO or employers matching a % for retirement. Take away this benefit in one state, without substituting higher pay, and watch many of the professors with national reputations leave for greener pastures.

[dismalist]

What people outside the academy don't get about tenure is that the job security it offers is a job benefit - not so different from PTO or employers matching a % for retirement. Take away this benefit in one state, without substituting higher pay, and watch many of the professors with national reputations leave for greener pastures.

Agree completely with the analysis of the role of tenure.

Question is the implication for who will leave if tenure were to end without compensation, and what the consequences might be. Only the best would leave! The research would be done elsewhere.

The academy would be saddled with weaker researchers. Too bad.

Look, as it is, universities tax granting agencies 50% - 90% of their grants. Other institutions can do this more cheaply.

The world will not end when tenure ends. No worries.

[pondering]

What people outside the academy don't get about tenure is that the job security it offers is a job benefit - not so different from PTO or employers matching a % for retirement. Take away this benefit in one state, without substituting higher pay, and watch many of the professors with national reputations leave for greener pastures.

I and many of my colleagues have international reputations in our humanities fields, and would certainly leave Florida if we could get job offers at equivalent universities elsewhere, but this is not always an option when there are 1-3 openings in your field each year (and all for assistant professors at the start of their careers, meaning that the search committees are unlikely to entertain applications from associate and full profs).

[Sun_Worshiper]

What people outside the academy don't get about tenure is that the job security it offers is a job benefit - not so different from PTO or employers matching a % for retirement. Take away this benefit in one state, without substituting higher pay, and watch many of the professors with national reputations leave for greener pastures.

Agree completely with the analysis of the role of tenure.

Question is the implication for who will leave if tenure were to end without compensation, and what the consequences might be. Only the best would leave! The research would be done elsewhere.

The academy would be saddled with weaker researchers. Too bad.

Look, as it is, universities tax granting agencies 50% - 90% of their grants. Other institutions can do this more cheaply.

The world will not end when tenure ends. No worries.

Tenure won't end. It will just be weakened in some states. Then, anyone mobile in an in-demand field with significant research potential or profile will be looking for the exit. Grant money will go elsewhere; publications will stagnate; reputations will deteriorate. Rankings will reflect this, of course, so good students will look elsewhere.

The world won't end, of course - nobody is saying it will - but these universities will be deeply wounded, along with the states in which they reside.

Overall, this policy will serve DeSantis' political interests in the short term while worsening the state in the long term.

What people outside the academy don't get about tenure is that the job security it offers is a job benefit - not so different from PTO or employers matching a % for retirement. Take away this benefit in one state, without substituting higher pay, and watch many of the professors with national reputations leave for greener pastures.

I and many of my colleagues have international reputations in our humanities fields, and would certainly leave Florida if we could get job offers at equivalent universities elsewhere, but this is not always an option when there are 1-3 openings in your field each year (and all for assistant professors at the start of their careers, meaning that the search committees are unlikely to entertain applications from associate and full profs).

Granted, there are not many options for people in the humanities. But different story for folks in fields that are in-demand.

[dismalist]

The world won't end, of course - nobody is saying it will - but these universities will be deeply wounded, along with the states in which they reside.

Of course such universities would suffer, Sun, which is a good thing. But the states are playing bigger games. Other institutions that do research can be attracted if they charge a lower tax rate on grants than universities currently do.

[Sun_Worshiper]

The world won't end, of course - nobody is saying it will - but these universities will be deeply wounded, along with the states in which they reside.

Of course such universities would suffer, Sun, which is a good thing. But the states are playing bigger games. Other institutions that do research can be attracted if they charge a lower tax rate on grants than universities currently do.

Please enlighten us all on why is it a good thing for universities to suffer.

And I don't know what other institutions you are talking about. I assume you mean think tanks or consulting shops that do (crappy) client-driven research. But, it won't be these institutions that FLA grant money flows to. It will be universities in other states.

Not that any of this is driven by tax rates on grants anyway. It is just DeSantis being a culture warrior because he thinks it will help him with Republican base voters who think university professors are all marxists.

[Kron3007]

The world won't end, of course - nobody is saying it will - but these universities will be deeply wounded, along with the states in which they reside.

Of course such universities would suffer, Sun, which is a good thing. But the states are playing bigger games. Other institutions that do research can be attracted if they charge a lower tax rate on grants than universities currently do.

Please enlighten us all on why is it a good thing for universities to suffer.

And I don't know what other institutions you are talking about. I assume you mean think tanks or consulting shops that do (crappy) client-driven research. But, it won't be these institutions that FLA grant money flows to. It will be universities in other states.

Not that any of this is driven by tax rates on grants anyway. It is just DeSantis being a culture warrior because he thinks it will help him with Republican base voters who think university professors are all marxists.

Yeah, I thought most grants were largely limited to academic applicants (this is the case where I am). 

As for universities taxing grants, grants are them selves funded by tax and meant to support the public good, facilitated through universities.  Isn't this the whole point?  If the only goal is to minimize the cost of research and you don't care about training the next generation of researchers, perhaps you have a point, but university research is not exclusively about finding the cheapest way to conduct your project (although it is hard to find cheaper labour than grad students and post-docs, so even after the "tax" it is likely a pretty good return even in your terms).  A major focus of many public granting agencies is training, not just dicovery....

You have some bizarre logic.

 

 

[Kron3007]

What people outside the academy don't get about tenure is that the job security it offers is a job benefit - not so different from PTO or employers matching a % for retirement. Take away this benefit in one state, without substituting higher pay, and watch many of the professors with national reputations leave for greener pastures.

Perhaps that is part of it, but it really does play an important  role in protecting researchers from political pressures (likely part of he reason he hates it so).  It is not only a benefit for the professor, it is important to allow researchers take risks and work on controversial topics.  To me, it is akin to having an open press.   

[dismalist]

Oh, sorry about "suffering". That was badly put. It's OK for universities to be challenged.

The end of tenure would not be a catastrophe. The best researchers don't need tenure. Still, there would have to be some improvement in working conditions to compensate if quantity should be maintained.

As for faculty leaving the state, that's not a big deal either. If there were to be fewer colleges and universities in Florida, that would  be fine, too. [Higher ed is set to shrink on demographic grounds alone.]

Everything should be done as cheaply as possible. Waste is bad.

Aren't all faculty Marxists? :-)

[mythbuster]

The irony of much of this is that the Florida SUS system spent much of the last decade setting up the performance based funding model where the top schools (UF, FSU and to a lesser extent UCF and USF) were all strongly rewarded for hopping up the rankings and bringing in LOTS of research dollars.  They actively recruited a lot of BIG name people to those schools. These Florida schools now rank shockingly high on various best of lists- Florida claims now to be a better system than even the UC's.

If DeSantis isn't careful, all of that could easily and rapidly crumble, as a mass exodus occurs, and UF returns to being just a football school. But I doubt that he actually cares- this is all about claiming to outperform Trump to get the precious ring of the GOP nomination.

[Kron3007]

Everything should be done as cheaply as possible. Waste is bad.

Aren't all faculty Marxists? :-)

I suppose you mean as efficiently as possible, not as cheap as possible.  You often get what you pay for.

I guess to put it into your terms though, the money that goes to universities is not only producing research results, but also highly trained personal.  So, you may be able to get the research portion done cheaper elsewhere (debatable), but the university system is also producing another product that the other options don't, they hire qualified people trained at the university.  For the system to continue, you need to train people, and this has a price.  You are comparing apples with oranges. 

[dismalist]

Everything should be done as cheaply as possible. Waste is bad.

Aren't all faculty Marxists? :-)

I suppose you mean as efficiently as possible, not as cheap as possible.  You often get what you pay for.

I guess to put it into your terms though, the money that goes to universities is not only producing research results, but also highly trained personal.  So, you may be able to get the research portion done cheaper elsewhere (debatable), but the university system is also producing another product that the other options don't, they hire qualified people trained at the university.  For the system to continue, you need to train people, and this has a price.  You are comparing apples with oranges.

No, no, Kron. I'm merely more skeptical of the value of the current quantity of higher ed than most people in higher ed, and believe that competition can make things more efficient, here by creating more diversity of conditions. This is admittedly a blunt instrument if done by state, and I wish it were done among all the thousands of colleges, but it's better than nothing.

As a retired professional soldier once told me: Never believe your own propaganda!

[Kron3007]

Everything should be done as cheaply as possible. Waste is bad.

Aren't all faculty Marxists? :-)

I suppose you mean as efficiently as possible, not as cheap as possible.  You often get what you pay for.

I guess to put it into your terms though, the money that goes to universities is not only producing research results, but also highly trained personal.  So, you may be able to get the research portion done cheaper elsewhere (debatable), but the university system is also producing another product that the other options don't, they hire qualified people trained at the university.  For the system to continue, you need to train people, and this has a price.  You are comparing apples with oranges.

No, no, Kron. I'm merely more skeptical of the value of the current quantity of higher ed than most people in higher ed, and believe that competition can make things more efficient, here by creating more diversity of conditions. This is admittedly a blunt instrument if done by state, and I wish it were done among all the thousands of colleges, but it's better than nothing.

As a retired professional soldier once told me: Never believe your own propaganda!

I don't think you will find too many faculty that deny things could be done better.  Yet, I still prefer that my doctor has completed med school.

Eliminating tenure may seem attractive, but sometimes there are unseen costs and consequences.  First off, it does protect academic freedom, which may not seem too important at times, but I disagree.  I guess the value of this depends on your outlook.

From a more mercantile perspective, losing tenure will either drive away talent or require higher salaries and drive up costs.  I had a company try to recruit me a few years ago.  I likely could have negotiated a higher salary than I get here, but I declined in large part because of job security, provided by the tenure system. 

[dismalist]

From a more mercantile perspective, losing tenure will either drive away talent or require higher salaries and drive up costs.

Actually, it just makes costs more visible. Tenure as a substitute for higher salaries deters the less risk averse, who work elsewhere, and whose contributions are lost. As long as we [the whole US of A] have institutions that offer tenure, those that don't are engaging in an experiment in productivity. Let's see who wins.

[My guess is that both forms will survive.]

[pondering]

As for faculty leaving the state, that's not a big deal either. If there were to be fewer colleges and universities in Florida, that would  be fine, too. [Higher ed is set to shrink on demographic grounds alone.]

This is true nationally, but not in Florida. We have the fastest-growing population in the US - and no, it is not only old retirees, but families and young-to-middle aged people who need higher education. All the big Florida R1s, including mine, have many tens of thousands of students, and - speaking for my institution - we are chronically under-staffed. Even upper-level classes consistently reach caps of 50-150 (even in the humanities) and we are overwhelmed by the number of students we are supposed to teach and advise. An exodus of colleagues will make this even worse.

Actually, it just makes costs more visible. Tenure as a substitute for higher salaries deters the less risk averse, who work elsewhere, and whose contributions are lost. As long as we [the whole US of A] have institutions that offer tenure, those that don't are engaging in an experiment in productivity. Let's see who wins.

No need for hypotheticals, we already have that experiment running here in Florida (until DeSantis implements this gutting of tenure across the board). Florida Gulf Coast University has no tenure; faculty are on rolling five year contracts and can be non-reappointed based on performance. The other big publics (UF, FSU, UCF, USF, FIU, FAU, UNF, UWF) have tenure. Would you say that FGCU is well known as a powerhouse of academia (as compared to, say, FSU and UF) and that its faculty are more productive?