Final nail in the coffin for tenure in Florida

[kaysixteen]

I get the role of tenure in insulating faculty from discharge over unpopular research.  Is it not also the case that it protects them from discharge or lesser negative results, over their classroom *teaching*, something whcih should be at least as important for most thinking parents and students?

[dismalist]

I get the role of tenure in insulating faculty from discharge over unpopular research.  Is it not also the case that it protects them from discharge or lesser negative results, over their classroom *teaching*, something which should be at least as important for most thinking parents and students?

Yup. That's job security. And that's why that's political, too.

Once again, not a problem if there's competition.

[mleok]

I get the role of tenure in insulating faculty from discharge over unpopular research.  Is it not also the case that it protects them from discharge or lesser negative results, over their classroom *teaching*, something whcih should be at least as important for most thinking parents and students?

Tenure is not sinecure, all it guarantees is a well-defined process that has to followed if a tenured faculty member is terminated for cause. This is the issue related to one of my former colleagues in the math department at Purdue, which is the topic of another thread. In the UC system, for example, we have a system of regular post-tenure merit review, and poor teaching and/or research can cause one to not receive a merit increase. If one fails to receive a merit increase over two review cycles, then it is possible to revoke tenure.

But, along the lines of what you're discussing, it's not clear what fraction of universities should be prioritizing research over teaching. In particular, it's unclear what the return on investment on research is at second-tier universities, and whether it would be better to concentrate research investment in a smaller number of institutions.

[marshwiggle]

This is the issue related to one of my former colleagues in the math department at Purdue, which is the topic of another thread. In the UC system, for example, we have a system of regular post-tenure merit review, and poor teaching and/or research can cause one to not receive a merit increase.

Whoa! Poor job performance may make someone not receive a raise! How draconian!
(Seriously, to the general public that just sounds completely asinine.)

[Kron3007]

This is the issue related to one of my former colleagues in the math department at Purdue, which is the topic of another thread. In the UC system, for example, we have a system of regular post-tenure merit review, and poor teaching and/or research can cause one to not receive a merit increase.

Whoa! Poor job performance may make someone not receive a raise! How draconian!
(Seriously, to the general public that just sounds completely asinine.)

You left out the next sentence where it was mentioned that multiple bad performance reviews can lead to loss of tenure, and logically eventually loss of job.  This should sound very reasonable to anyone.

[marshwiggle]

This is the issue related to one of my former colleagues in the math department at Purdue, which is the topic of another thread. In the UC system, for example, we have a system of regular post-tenure merit review, and poor teaching and/or research can cause one to not receive a merit increase.

Whoa! Poor job performance may make someone not receive a raise! How draconian!
(Seriously, to the general public that just sounds completely asinine.)

You left out the next sentence where it was mentioned that multiple bad performance reviews can lead to loss of tenure, and logically eventually loss of job.  This should sound very reasonable to anyone.

Not to people who can get fired outright for one bad review, and not even for those who will get one warning, and the next bad review will get them fired. Requiring "multiple" bad reviews to get someone fired is vastly more lenient than the conditions of many (if not most) working people.

[Kron3007]

This is the issue related to one of my former colleagues in the math department at Purdue, which is the topic of another thread. In the UC system, for example, we have a system of regular post-tenure merit review, and poor teaching and/or research can cause one to not receive a merit increase.

Whoa! Poor job performance may make someone not receive a raise! How draconian!
(Seriously, to the general public that just sounds completely asinine.)

You left out the next sentence where it was mentioned that multiple bad performance reviews can lead to loss of tenure, and logically eventually loss of job.  This should sound very reasonable to anyone.

Not to people who can get fired outright for one bad review, and not even for those who will get one warning, and the next bad review will get them fired. Requiring "multiple" bad reviews to get someone fired is vastly more lenient than the conditions of many (if not most) working people.

I can't fire my employees without several warnings.  Maybe that is the case in some regions, but that is a whole problem in and of itself...   

[mleok]

This is the issue related to one of my former colleagues in the math department at Purdue, which is the topic of another thread. In the UC system, for example, we have a system of regular post-tenure merit review, and poor teaching and/or research can cause one to not receive a merit increase.

Whoa! Poor job performance may make someone not receive a raise! How draconian!
(Seriously, to the general public that just sounds completely asinine.)

You left out the next sentence where it was mentioned that multiple bad performance reviews can lead to loss of tenure, and logically eventually loss of job.  This should sound very reasonable to anyone.

Not to people who can get fired outright for one bad review, and not even for those who will get one warning, and the next bad review will get them fired. Requiring "multiple" bad reviews to get someone fired is vastly more lenient than the conditions of many (if not most) working people.

Sure, but as I said, if you wish to have the luxury of firing me on a whim, then you need to be paying me what I can command in industry. I'm not going to accept a fraction of my market rate for at-will employment.

[Stockmann]

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.

I have one article about economists and tenure from 2018. It cites papers on sociology, economics, and law, where the same publication drop post-tenure is found. A book I have cites a study from 1980 across multiple disciplines. I have seen another claim that "there is a literature", but I don't know what to make of it.

The paper I have specifically addresses service and teaching demands on time and finds it cannot explain the drop because quality [by citations] of papers goes down and quantity of "bad" papers goes up!

In any case, tenure was not propagated to protect service work and teaching, but research.

Defense of tenure is moral rhetoric, self interested at that. It's just another barrier to entry.

If that paper uses number of publications as a metric, then that's a god-awful metric to use. The salami-publisher who publishes ten articles of incremental research is not ten times more productive than the prof who publishes one in-depth article that proves ground-breaking. The beancounters love to count publications, but this is as absurd as adding up numbers of new Ferraris and numbers of beaten-up lemons because you're counting cars. Cars are not all the same, publications are not all the same.

[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. :-)

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.

I have one article about economists and tenure from 2018. It cites papers on sociology, economics, and law, where the same publication drop post-tenure is found. A book I have cites a study from 1980 across multiple disciplines. I have seen another claim that "there is a literature", but I don't know what to make of it.

The paper I have specifically addresses service and teaching demands on time and finds it cannot explain the drop because quality [by citations] of papers goes down and quantity of "bad" papers goes up!

In any case, tenure was not propagated to protect service work and teaching, but research.

Defense of tenure is moral rhetoric, self interested at that. It's just another barrier to entry.

If that paper uses number of publications as a metric, then that's a god-awful metric to use. The salami-publisher who publishes ten articles of incremental research is not ten times more productive than the prof who publishes one in-depth article that proves ground-breaking. The beancounters love to count publications, but this is as absurd as adding up numbers of new Ferraris and numbers of beaten-up lemons because you're counting cars. Cars are not all the same, publications are not all the same.

Completely agreed. In addition to publications, citations have been measured. So, how do you measure research productivity?

My own feeling is that you can't do it properly until decades after the funeral.

The point is that tenure as now awarded means nothing for research productivity.

[jimbogumbo]

dismalist, you keep saying the same thing with no evidence that it applies to the natural sciences and mathematics. For high level universities in these areas you simply have to have been promoted to Associate (which at many is essentially tied to tenure) to have the grad students and labs to support getting these grants. If you wish we can restrict the discussion to the AAU membership (of which the University of Florida is currently a member), and I can guarantee that this is the case. The bulk of that important research occurs after promotion and tenure, and requires those grants.

[dismalist]

dismalist, you keep saying the same thing with no evidence that it applies to the natural sciences and mathematics. For high level universities in these areas you simply have to have been promoted to Associate (which at many is essentially tied to tenure) to have the grad students and labs to support getting these grants. If you wish we can restrict the discussion to the AAU membership (of which the University of Florida is currently a member), and I can guarantee that this is the case. The bulk of that important research occurs after promotion and tenure, and requires those grants.

All that may well be true, but alas, there is no systematic empirical evidence for this that I know of.

[mleok]

dismalist, you keep saying the same thing with no evidence that it applies to the natural sciences and mathematics. For high level universities in these areas you simply have to have been promoted to Associate (which at many is essentially tied to tenure) to have the grad students and labs to support getting these grants. If you wish we can restrict the discussion to the AAU membership (of which the University of Florida is currently a member), and I can guarantee that this is the case. The bulk of that important research occurs after promotion and tenure, and requires those grants.

All that may well be true, but alas, there is no systematic empirical evidence for this that I know of.

But, you're making a far stronger claim that there is no evidence that tenure is essential for long-term research productivity in STEM fields.

[dismalist]

dismalist, you keep saying the same thing with no evidence that it applies to the natural sciences and mathematics. For high level universities in these areas you simply have to have been promoted to Associate (which at many is essentially tied to tenure) to have the grad students and labs to support getting these grants. If you wish we can restrict the discussion to the AAU membership (of which the University of Florida is currently a member), and I can guarantee that this is the case. The bulk of that important research occurs after promotion and tenure, and requires those grants.

All that may well be true, but alas, there is no systematic empirical evidence for this that I know of.

But, you're making a far stronger claim that there is no evidence that tenure is essential for long-term research productivity in STEM fields.

What's STEM got to do with the price of fish?

Look, there is evidence that tenure lowers research productivity in a couple of fields. This is consistent with researchers' self interest. I don't expect STEM to be different because, after all, STEMmers are human, too, and so respond to incentives.

The tests have only been done for the United States. Maybe it's different in Greece. I would expect not, for Greeks are humans and respond to incentives.

Of course, if you believed otherwise, find some tests. Otherwise this is an evidence free belief.

This discussion is inconceivable outside the academy. Non-academics would see through the incentives right away.

[marshwiggle]

dismalist, you keep saying the same thing with no evidence that it applies to the natural sciences and mathematics. For high level universities in these areas you simply have to have been promoted to Associate (which at many is essentially tied to tenure) to have the grad students and labs to support getting these grants. If you wish we can restrict the discussion to the AAU membership (of which the University of Florida is currently a member), and I can guarantee that this is the case. The bulk of that important research occurs after promotion and tenure, and requires those grants.

All that may well be true, but alas, there is no systematic empirical evidence for this that I know of.

But, you're making a far stronger claim that there is no evidence that tenure is essential for long-term research productivity in STEM fields.

What's STEM got to do with the price of fish?

Look, there is evidence that tenure lowers research productivity in a couple of fields. This is consistent with researchers' self interest. I don't expect STEM to be different because, after all, STEMmers are human, too, and so respond to incentives.

One thing that may make a difference is if granting agencies prefer profs with tenure. If they do, then the scope of research possible will be greater with tenure. This will obviously be a bigger determinant in fields that require lots of lab equipment, infrastructure, etc.