Final nail in the coffin for tenure in Florida

[dismalist]

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?

Under funded, understaffed, I want more, too.

As for the rest, great! Keep the experiment running.

[pondering]

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?

Under funded, understaffed, I want more, too.

As for the rest, great! Keep the experiment running.

I posed the question about whether the tenure-less FGCU is superior rhetorically. No disrespect to its faculty, but most publish substantially less than people at the Florida R1s, and even than their counterparts at R2s with the same teaching loads. In short, lacking tenure does *not* make faculty more productive - as far as we can gauge from research output.

Their salaries are also the same as other Florida R2s, despite lacking tenure. Almost nobody chooses to work at FGCU unless they have no other choice. And if DeSantis follows through with this plan to empower boards to dismiss tenured faculty arbitrarily, the same will be true of all Florida universities.

[Kron3007]

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.]

You also ignore the central reason for tenure in the first place, to ensure researchers have the freedom to do controversial research.  For example, as much as I dislike Jordan Peterson's position, he was able to stand on his soapbox without worry of losing his job because he was protected by tenure. 

Even if there is a cost imparted by the tenure system, there are also benefits.  Politics should not guide research.

[mleok]

Florida claims now to be a better system than even the UC's.

Forgive me if I laugh at that notion. I have yet to see another state university system besides the University of California system that has so many campuses operating at the highest levels of research excellence. Which top-notch STEM faculty member who is still productive would choose to relocate to a public university in Florida?

[Parasaurolophus]

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.]

You also ignore the central reason for tenure in the first place, to ensure researchers have the freedom to do controversial research.  For example, as much as I dislike Jordan Peterson's position, he was able to stand on his soapbox without worry of losing his job because he was protected by tenure. 

Even if there is a cost imparted by the tenure system, there are also benefits.  Politics should not guide research.

How on earth he managed to earn tenure on the basis of Maps of Meaning, however, is another question. And one that reflects poorly on an otherwise fantastic research institution.

[dismalist]

On the effects of tenure, think incentives. Bust your ass to get job security. Then, when you have job security, you stop busting your ass! This is confirmed empirically, at least for economics and finance. There is no evidence that riskier subjects are undertaken, either. This makes sense because tenure is valued more highly by the risk averse.

Peterson resigned from his tenured post. He didn't need tenure.

There is politics in research as it is. Left wingers outnumber right wingers on faculties to an extraordinary degree. In some fields in many private university departments it is a big positive number compared to zero. The only question is whose politics, the politics of the faculty or of the taxpayers. Anyway, the approach to truth is not promoted by de-politicization of the right, but by competition.

[marshwiggle]

You also ignore the central reason for tenure in the first place, to ensure researchers have the freedom to do controversial research.  For example, as much as I dislike Jordan Peterson's position, he was able to stand on his soapbox without worry of losing his job because he was protected by tenure. 

Even if there is a cost imparted by the tenure system, there are also benefits.  Politics should not guide research.

How on earth he managed to earn tenure on the basis of Maps of Meaning, however, is another question. And one that reflects poorly on an otherwise fantastic research institution.

So is the system for granting tenure flawed? If so, then it follows that tenure itself is flawed.

[Stockmann]

Tenure is important for rational risk-taking in research. If you have no protection from short-term publish or perish (and tenure offers some protection) then your rational incentives are to work on whatever will produce results quickly that will be easily accepted in "respectable" journals - incremental research, in other words - as well creating an incentive for salami publishing. Potentially groundbreaking research, due to its very nature, has a high risk of failure, and of delays (kind of like how venture capitalists know a significant number of their investments will fail - but you don't buy into the next unicorn in the early days without taking risks). Nobody rational is going to engage in it in instead of incremental, "safe" research if your livelihood is on the line annually or even more frequently. Also, it would train the next generation of researchers in incremental research and salami publishing instead of anything that might be groundbreaking but initially struggle through peer review or take a long time to produce results*.
Of course research output tends to fall after tenure - firstly, pre-tenure research output is unsustainable for the vast majority of folk (and without the carrot of tenure, there isn't much of an incentive to publish up a storm instead of pacing yourself - sprint vs. marathon - better spread out your output to stay employed) and also, tenured folk often have more committee work or other duties.
Finally, only folks with some job security are in a position to stand for academic standards in the face of "customers" and admins wanting A's for everyone. This doesn't mean necessarily that they will, or that they will be good or even half-decent instructors, but at many places adjuncts who try to uphold academic standards will simply be out of a job.



*So maybe Bob published 10 papers during his PhD because his PI has a local monopoly on a fancy piece of equipment and Bob is the one who knows which buttons to use, the password for the PC and has the keys to the lab, and Bob and his PI are co-authors on anything published using that piece of equipment. Meanwhile Alice publishes only one paper during her PhD, with her PI as the only other author, which struggles through peer review but a few years later is recognized as groundbreaking. If short-term publish or perish is everything, Bob and his PI are much more likely to thrive, even if Alice and her PI are better researchers.

[pondering]

On the effects of tenure, think incentives. Bust your ass to get job security. Then, when you have job security, you stop busting your ass! This is confirmed empirically, at least for economics and finance. There is no evidence that riskier subjects are undertaken, either. This makes sense because tenure is valued more highly by the risk averse.

I literally pointed out that this is not necessarily true earlier in the thread, by comparing the output of humanities faculty at an institution that does not grant tenure versus that of people in the same disciplines at otherwise similar institutions that do.

The absence of tenure is good for administrators and accountants who want to be able to hire and fire as they see fit. I see no evidence that it improves the work of faculty, and plenty that it diminishes the quality of that work (for reasons that seem obvious - inability to plan long-term projects, fear of drawing controversial conclusions, etc.).

[dismalist]

On the effects of tenure, think incentives. Bust your ass to get job security. Then, when you have job security, you stop busting your ass! This is confirmed empirically, at least for economics and finance. There is no evidence that riskier subjects are undertaken, either. This makes sense because tenure is valued more highly by the risk averse.

I literally pointed out that this is not necessarily true earlier in the thread, by comparing the output of humanities faculty at an institution that does not grant tenure versus that of people in the same disciplines at otherwise similar institutions that do.

The absence of tenure is good for administrators and accountants who want to be able to hire and fire as they see fit. I see no evidence that it improves the work of faculty, and plenty that it diminishes the quality of that work (for reasons that seem obvious - inability to plan long-term projects, fear of drawing controversial conclusions, etc.).

It just doesn't happen that way on average. Not in econ and not in sociology. It's not even different at so-called elite schools.

But we're missing something. Long before the AAUP was founded some universities offered tenure, just not all. If they think it's good, let them offer it. The legal stuff in Florida [and if you really want to get excited, look at whats before the North Dakota House :-)] is aimed at state  funded universities only. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Variety and competition. The accountants are not out to fire you if you're good, adding to the prestige or competence of the employer. Think incentives.

University governance is so inefficient -- in some ways it must be -- I'm sure both tenure granting and non-tenure granting institutions will survive.

[jimbogumbo]

At R1s output goes up post tenure in science and mathematics. Personally, I turned down a named professorship once as the institution didn't grant tenure for new Fulls who already had tenure even at a more prestigious institution. Didn't trust the process, and if I'd decided to leave it would be harder to start at a new place.

[dismalist]

At R1s output goes up post tenure in science and mathematics.

Any evidence?

Look, whatever, things might vary, though I doubt it. Scientists and mathematicians are humans, too, so they will react similarly to the same incentives.

I've seen a small number mathematicians who are very, very strange! That doesn't mean they are bad. :-)

[Kron3007]

At R1s output goes up post tenure in science and mathematics.

Any evidence?

Look, whatever, things might vary, though I doubt it. Scientists and mathematicians are humans, too, so they will react similarly to the same incentives.

I've seen a small number mathematicians who are very, very strange! That doesn't mean they are bad. :-)

Publications rates definitely go up post tenure, you can find this info easily.  I don't think it is because of tenure, but it does dispel the notion that people slow down substantially post-tenure.  I'm sure there are a few who do (I am not blind), but in my department most of them take on more service and teaching responsibilities, so it is not that simple.  By taking on those roles, they contribute so the department and essentially reduce the load for others who are more "productive".

I'm sure there are some who do slow down and don't pull their weight, but they really are a minority and I don't think getting rid of tenure would result in any significant savings, and you would lose all the benefits.  As you say, life will go on regardless, but that doesn't mean the options are equal.

[marshwiggle]

Publications rates definitely go up post tenure, you can find this info easily.  I don't think it is because of tenure, but it does dispel the notion that people slow down substantially post-tenure.  I'm sure there are a few who do (I am not blind), but in my department most of them take on more service and teaching responsibilities, so it is not that simple.  By taking on those roles, they contribute so the department and essentially reduce the load for others who are more "productive".

I'm sure there are some who do slow down and don't pull their weight, but they really are a minority and I don't think getting rid of tenure would result in any significant savings, and you would lose all the benefits.  As you say, life will go on regardless, but that doesn't mean the options are equal.

It's this argument, with the attendant implication of "so we don't really need to weed them out" that undermines tenure in the public mind, especially of people who know enough of how the system works to have seen examples of that.

They darn well should be a minority; if they're anything more than a vanishingly small minority then the system needs work. (If most faculty know of someone in their own or an adjacent department that's like this, that's way too many. This includes those who are "only a few years from retirement" so we ignore them.)

[Kron3007]

Publications rates definitely go up post tenure, you can find this info easily.  I don't think it is because of tenure, but it does dispel the notion that people slow down substantially post-tenure.  I'm sure there are a few who do (I am not blind), but in my department most of them take on more service and teaching responsibilities, so it is not that simple.  By taking on those roles, they contribute so the department and essentially reduce the load for others who are more "productive".

I'm sure there are some who do slow down and don't pull their weight, but they really are a minority and I don't think getting rid of tenure would result in any significant savings, and you would lose all the benefits.  As you say, life will go on regardless, but that doesn't mean the options are equal.

It's this argument, with the attendant implication of "so we don't really need to weed them out" that undermines tenure in the public mind, especially of people who know enough of how the system works to have seen examples of that.

They darn well should be a minority; if they're anything more than a vanishingly small minority then the system needs work. (If most faculty know of someone in their own or an adjacent department that's like this, that's way too many. This includes those who are "only a few years from retirement" so we ignore them.)

This is the exact same argument against unions.  In both cases there are problems, but overall they are better than the alternative.

As for the public and their general opinion, most people have very little understanding of academia at all.  When people learn I am a professor, most think it means I am basically a teacher and frequently ask if I have summers off.  The role and importance of the research endeavor in the university is not widely understood from my experience.  So, most would have very little information to base their opinion of the tenure system, not that would stop them.