Final nail in the coffin for tenure in Florida

[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.

[mleok]

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.

The issues in Florida have nothing to do with economic incentives. But, even if one is willing to accept the notion that the absence of tenure has no practical consequences on the highly productive, it doesn't change the fact that it provides a hedge against any reduction in your productivity because of age or other factors, so it has economic value to any professor, risk adverse or otherwise. Put another way, all else being equal, why would one ever accept a position without tenure over one with it? Eliminate tenure by all means, but pay me the three to four times more that I can command in an equally precarious position in industry.

[mleok]

I should also add that tenure does not necessarily remove the economic incentives for continuing to be productive in research, if there is a robust system of merit pay and salary progression. For example, I was hired with tenure at my current institution, but my salary has more than doubled over the last 13 years because we have a robust rank and step system that rewards continued research productivity. I am a mid step full professor now, and there is another about 30% worth of salary increase available if I work my way up to distinguished professor.

[dismalist]

I should also add that tenure does not necessarily remove the economic incentives for continuing to be productive in research, if there is a robust system of merit pay and salary progression. For example, I was hired with tenure at my current institution, but my salary has more than doubled over the last 13 years because we have a robust rank and step system that rewards continued research productivity. I am a mid step full professor now, and there is another about 30% worth of salary increase available if I work my way up to distinguished professor.

Yes, of course. It's the "robust system of merit pay and salary progression" doing the trick!  Which is fine. Competition will have universities decide how to best manage employment incentives.

Again, there is no evidence I know of that supports the idea that tenure promotes research productivity. What evidence is available supports the opposite conclusion -- that tenure harms productivity.

[rth253]

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. :-)

Tenure increases productivity long-term in this study: https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/esep/v15/n1/p87-93/

[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. :-)

Tenure increases productivity long-term in this study: https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/esep/v15/n1/p87-93/

Thank you for the citation and link!

The central condition for the results [from the pdf] is:

We considered that if the annual number of publications exhibited an increasing trend during 1996 to 2014, irrespective of when tenure was granted during this period, the hypothesis that tenure reduces productivity can be rejected.

The sample suffers from selection bias. Of course those getting tenure publish, and there may well be a trend for some individuals. The article further reports that some professors publish more and some publish less over time. So, the overall result isn't even by majority voting -- 40% publish more, 60% publish less! This was Marsh's point, though far, far worse than he thought.

The articles I have reported on compare publications after tenure is granted with the number before, both quantity and quality. And they come to the opposite conclusion.

But this just reinforces my point. Tenure is not obviously good for anything according to the evidence. Hell, for this sample, you're shooting less than 50-50.

[jimbogumbo]

But you claimed a drop in publications AFTER tenure, and for the natural sciences the study does not reflect that at all.

[dismalist]

But you claimed a drop in publications AFTER tenure, and for the natural sciences the study does not reflect that at all.

Bad study, but it's honest: It didn't look. As it showed, 40% of faculty increased their pubs over time -- no consideration of when tenure was granted and no attempt at quality designation, and 60% decreased their pubs.

If publications are the reason for tenure, I could do better deciding who gets tenure by flipping a coin. :-)

Bad decision mechanism, unless one is risk averse. Good people do not need tenure.

[rth253]

But you claimed a drop in publications AFTER tenure, and for the natural sciences the study does not reflect that at all.

Bad study, but it's honest: It didn't look. As it showed, 40% of faculty increased their pubs over time -- no consideration of when tenure was granted and no attempt at quality designation, and 60% decreased their pubs.

If publications are the reason for tenure, I could do better deciding who gets tenure by flipping a coin. :-)

Bad decision mechanism, unless one is risk averse. Good people do not need tenure.

They do if they can be fired for doing any research that the governor doesn't like, as will be the case in Florida.

[dismalist]

Bad study, but it's honest: It didn't look. As it showed, 40% of faculty increased their pubs over time -- no consideration of when tenure was granted and no attempt at quality designation, and 60% decreased their pubs.

If publications are the reason for tenure, I could do better deciding who gets tenure by flipping a coin. :-)

Bad decision mechanism, unless one is risk averse. Good people do not need tenure.

They do if they can be fired for doing any research that the governor doesn't like, as will be the case in Florida.

But because tenure doesn't promote research quality and quantity, that would be no loss to the Florida public universities! As long as there is a mechanism for determining quality -- I can think of one: Bring in an outside offer -- the political bosses have no incentive to get rid of faculty they disagree with.

So this discussion is about politics one doesn't agree with and job protection, not research quality. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Note none of this affects private universities in Florida.

[jimbogumbo]

-- the political bosses have no incentive to get rid of faculty they disagree with.

So this discussion is about politics one doesn't agree with and job protection, not research quality. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Note none of this affects private universities in Florida.

Of course they do! Hire someone more cheaply!

Here is a handy link indicating roughly 73% of students attend public universities. IMHO it is important to keep the political demagogues in a hands off mode regarding them.

https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics

[dismalist]

-- the political bosses have no incentive to get rid of faculty they disagree with.

So this discussion is about politics one doesn't agree with and job protection, not research quality. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Note none of this affects private universities in Florida.

Of course they do! Hire someone more cheaply!

Here is a handy link indicating roughly 73% of students attend public universities. IMHO it is important to keep the political demagogues in a hands off mode regarding them.

https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics

There are many states containing lots of people that have a different policy than Florida. Think California, New York, Massachusetts, etc.

There are plenty of political demagogues inside universities. So, in some states the publics will have them under control.

Wages are determined on a market now and that won't change. The number of academics in higher ed won't change and the demand for their services will not change because of a change in tenure rules. therefore, wages will not change. Higher wages for higher research quantity and quality is still promoted because colleges are competing with each other for students and for prestige. Tenure probably depresses wages because the risk averse are willing to trade lower wages for job higher security and the less risk averse avoid such jobs.

[pondering]

-- the political bosses have no incentive to get rid of faculty they disagree with.

So this discussion is about politics one doesn't agree with and job protection, not research quality. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Note none of this affects private universities in Florida.

Of course they do! Hire someone more cheaply!

Here is a handy link indicating roughly 73% of students attend public universities. IMHO it is important to keep the political demagogues in a hands off mode regarding them.

https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics

There are many states containing lots of people that have a different policy than Florida. Think California, New York, Massachusetts, etc.

Is this banal observation supposed to justify the new policy in Florida? When I started working at a Florida R1 several years ago, I was on the tenure-track (and am now tenured) in a system designed to protect us from political interference and preserve our academic freedom, as in every other state. Now the terms of employment have changed, and telling us that there are other states which haven't suddenly gutted tenure for political expediency is no use to those of stuck in Florida. It's not as if I can move and get a job in a university in California or Massachusetts when there are 2-3 openings in my field in the entire world each year, generally at the entry level. As you know, the academic job market does not operate like that of a normal profession, in which one can find a multitude of openings in any city or state. In those situations, telling people "if you don't like it, move" is actionable advice, but that is not the case for humanities professors.

[dismalist]

-- the political bosses have no incentive to get rid of faculty they disagree with.

So this discussion is about politics one doesn't agree with and job protection, not research quality. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Note none of this affects private universities in Florida.

Of course they do! Hire someone more cheaply!

Here is a handy link indicating roughly 73% of students attend public universities. IMHO it is important to keep the political demagogues in a hands off mode regarding them.

https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics

There are many states containing lots of people that have a different policy than Florida. Think California, New York, Massachusetts, etc.

Is this banal observation supposed to justify the new policy in Florida? When I started working at a Florida R1 several years ago, I was on the tenure-track (and am now tenured) in a system designed to protect us from political interference and preserve our academic freedom, as in every other state. Now the terms of employment have changed, and telling us that there are other states which haven't suddenly gutted tenure for political expediency is no use to those of stuck in Florida. It's not as if I can move and get a job in a university in California or Massachusetts when there are 2-3 openings in my field in the entire world each year, generally at the entry level. As you know, the academic job market does not operate like that of a normal profession, in which one can find a multitude of openings in any city or state. In those situations, telling people "if you don't like it, move" is actionable advice, but that is not the case for humanities professors.

You forgot to quote the rest of what I said.

There are plenty of political demagogues inside universities. So, in some states the publics will have them under control.

Wages are determined on a market now and that won't change. The number of academics in higher ed won't change and the demand for their services will not change because of a change in tenure rules. therefore, wages will not change. Higher wages for higher research quantity and quality is still promoted because colleges are competing with each other for students and for prestige. Tenure probably depresses wages because the risk averse are willing to trade lower wages for job higher security and the less risk averse avoid such jobs.

In the final analysis, tenure is about self-interest, here clearly political self interest of the overwhelming share of faculty and of course job security. There is no reason that political self interest should be rewarded by taxpayers who disagree. Here for public institutions, largely paid for by the public in that state.

[More technically, you are saying markets are thin. That's another argument from self-interest. And maybe without tenure they'd be thicker! :-)]

[Kron3007]

-- the political bosses have no incentive to get rid of faculty they disagree with.

So this discussion is about politics one doesn't agree with and job protection, not research quality. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Note none of this affects private universities in Florida.

Of course they do! Hire someone more cheaply!

Here is a handy link indicating roughly 73% of students attend public universities. IMHO it is important to keep the political demagogues in a hands off mode regarding them.

https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics

There are many states containing lots of people that have a different policy than Florida. Think California, New York, Massachusetts, etc.

Is this banal observation supposed to justify the new policy in Florida? When I started working at a Florida R1 several years ago, I was on the tenure-track (and am now tenured) in a system designed to protect us from political interference and preserve our academic freedom, as in every other state. Now the terms of employment have changed, and telling us that there are other states which haven't suddenly gutted tenure for political expediency is no use to those of stuck in Florida. It's not as if I can move and get a job in a university in California or Massachusetts when there are 2-3 openings in my field in the entire world each year, generally at the entry level. As you know, the academic job market does not operate like that of a normal profession, in which one can find a multitude of openings in any city or state. In those situations, telling people "if you don't like it, move" is actionable advice, but that is not the case for humanities professors.

You forgot to quote the rest of what I said.

There are plenty of political demagogues inside universities. So, in some states the publics will have them under control.

Wages are determined on a market now and that won't change. The number of academics in higher ed won't change and the demand for their services will not change because of a change in tenure rules. therefore, wages will not change. Higher wages for higher research quantity and quality is still promoted because colleges are competing with each other for students and for prestige. Tenure probably depresses wages because the risk averse are willing to trade lower wages for job higher security and the less risk averse avoid such jobs.

In the final analysis, tenure is about self-interest, here clearly political self interest of the overwhelming share of faculty and of course job security. There is no reason that political self interest should be rewarded by taxpayers who disagree. Here for public institutions, largely paid for by the public in that state.

[More technically, you are saying markets are thin. That's another argument from self-interest. And maybe without tenure they'd be thicker! :-)]

It's not political self interest to want  to protect academic freedom.  I want this protected for all, even those I disagree with, to ensure our public institutions are free from overt political influence.

This is why I earlier mentioned Jordon Peterson, someone I disagree strongly with but was happy to see him protected by tenure.  Earlier you mentioned that he resigned, which is true, but only because he was able to build his following and get rich enough to do so while protected by tenure. 

Academic freedom is akin to freedom of speach. Sometimes they cause problems, and may have costs, but are an important part of of maintaining a free and open society.