Final nail in the coffin for tenure in Florida

[dismalist]

Academic freedom is protected by competition. It looks to me that Florida is promoting competition.

Tenure as we know it protects the incumbents along with their political views. There is no evidence that tenure promotes quantity or quality of research.

Arguments for tenure are self-interested.

[quasihumanist]

Is there any demand for quality of research?

Since it's all signalling anyway, what matters to a university is perceived quality of research.  Maybe at the groundbreaking Nobel Prize level, people notice, but I'll bet that a fifth-rate scientist with a first-rate marketing office does more for a university than a second-rate scientist with a second-rate marketing office.

So universities should hire the cheapest, vaguely competent "researchers" they can find.

My rationale for tenure is different.  Universities need to somehow stop the race to the bottom of becoming all signal and no substance, even if the market is against it.  (Just because people want to take soma all day doesn't mean we should let them, and ditto with getting diplomas without learning anything.)  The way to do it is to have faculty, who actually tend to be people who care about substance more than money, in charge.  A democracy doesn't work if you can fire your voters.

Unfortunately, too many universities have become dominated by faculty who are more interested in perks, if not money, over substance, and are willing to cede power to administrators so that they can be left alone in their research.  So it doesn't matter any more.

[dismalist]

It's indeed all very difficult, quasi.

Universities produce a product -- qualifications -- that is hard to evaluate by anybody, by faculty that don't sell the product, by students who don't pay for the product, and is run by owners who are far removed from even understanding the nature of what is produced! In an informationally sparse environment like that, there's plenty of room for pursuing one's narrow self interest successfully.

So far, we can see that tenure is not something that promotes quantity and quality of research. I have no clue what a silver bullet to obtain the right faculty would look like.

Competition would lead to the right size, contents, and faculty of higher ed even in such an informationally obscure environment because everyone would be incentivized to gather and consider information much more than now.

[mleok]

A former student of mine used to teach at the Florida Institute of Technology, which did not have a tenure system at the time he was hired, and they introduced that after 60 years without it, because they believed it would improve the quality of faculty they could attract,

https://www.chronicle.com/article/lots-of-people-want-to-end-tenure-this-university-wants-to-start-it/

It is simply naive to believe that removing tenure from the University of Florida will not compromise their ability to hire the best faculty, unless they compensate for that by significantly increasing the salaries that they offer.

[mleok]

Academic freedom is protected by competition. It looks to me that Florida is promoting competition.

Tenure as we know it protects the incumbents along with their political views. There is no evidence that tenure promotes quantity or quality of research.

Arguments for tenure are self-interested.

Tenure is anti-competitive, but that offers an advantage to universities, since it distorts the market, and allows them to pay less than the market rate. It's surprising that an economist like you can't even recognize that basic fact.

As for tenure not promoting quality of research, I think Andrew Wiles, who spent six years proving Fermat's Last Theorem would disagree with you.

[dismalist]

A former student of mine used to teach at the Florida Institute of Technology, which did not have a tenure system at the time he was hired, and they introduced that after 60 years without it, because they believed it would improve the quality of faculty they could attract,

https://www.chronicle.com/article/lots-of-people-want-to-end-tenure-this-university-wants-to-start-it/

It is simply naive to believe that removing tenure from the University of Florida will not compromise their ability to hire the best faculty, unless they compensate for that by significantly increasing the salaries that they offer.

We're going around in circles. Of course salaries must rise to compensate for job security! And different people will be attracted to academia. Tenure doesn't reduce costs, it hides costs. And tenure doesn't increase research productivity on average.

I've said that both tenure granting schools and non-tenure granting schools will survive, on account higher ed is -- well -- complicated. Each school will have to find the best ways to prosper and survive. Tenure to protect faculty political views in state financed schools is what's still objectionable. Doing neo-marxism at the Seven Sisters is not objectionable except for the government subsidies.

The intellectual resistance to competition speaks volumes. Tenure is about narrow self interest. And it sits deep.

[mleok]

A former student of mine used to teach at the Florida Institute of Technology, which did not have a tenure system at the time he was hired, and they introduced that after 60 years without it, because they believed it would improve the quality of faculty they could attract,

https://www.chronicle.com/article/lots-of-people-want-to-end-tenure-this-university-wants-to-start-it/

It is simply naive to believe that removing tenure from the University of Florida will not compromise their ability to hire the best faculty, unless they compensate for that by significantly increasing the salaries that they offer.

We're going around in circles. Of course salaries must rise to compensate for job security! And different people will be attracted to academia. Tenure doesn't reduce costs, it hides costs. And tenure doesn't increase research productivity on average.

I've said that both tenure granting schools and non-tenure granting schools will survive, on account higher ed is -- well -- complicated. Each school will have to find the best ways to prosper and survive. Tenure to protect faculty political views in state financed schools is what's objectionable.

The intellectual resistance to competition speaks volumes.

Of course these schools will survive, but what makes you think the University of Florida will be able or willing to raise salaries enough to compensate for their anti-intellectual policies and maintain the quality of their research? The very best faculty have options, particularly in STEM, and no public university is going to be able to compete with the kind of compensation that is available in industry without the lure of tenure. I think you're the one letting your political views color your objectivity.

Belief in climate change is not political, belief in vaccines is not political, but I assure you that Florida will make it political, and thus render tenure worthless even if it is only weakened to "not protect political views."

[quasihumanist]

Competition would lead to the right size, contents, and faculty of higher ed even in such an informationally obscure environment because everyone would be incentivized to gather and consider information much more than now.

Right for what purpose?

[dismalist]

A former student of mine used to teach at the Florida Institute of Technology, which did not have a tenure system at the time he was hired, and they introduced that after 60 years without it, because they believed it would improve the quality of faculty they could attract,

https://www.chronicle.com/article/lots-of-people-want-to-end-tenure-this-university-wants-to-start-it/

It is simply naive to believe that removing tenure from the University of Florida will not compromise their ability to hire the best faculty, unless they compensate for that by significantly increasing the salaries that they offer.

We're going around in circles. Of course salaries must rise to compensate for job security! And different people will be attracted to academia. Tenure doesn't reduce costs, it hides costs. And tenure doesn't increase research productivity on average.

I've said that both tenure granting schools and non-tenure granting schools will survive, on account higher ed is -- well -- complicated. Each school will have to find the best ways to prosper and survive. Tenure to protect faculty political views in state financed schools is what's objectionable.

The intellectual resistance to competition speaks volumes.

Of course these schools will survive, but what makes you think the University of Florida will be able or willing to raise salaries enough to compensate for their anti-intellectual policies and maintain the quality of their research? The very best faculty have options, particularly in STEM, and no public university is going to be able to compete with the kind of compensation that is available in industry without the lure of tenure. I think you're the one letting your political views color your objectivity.

Belief in climate change is not political, belief in vaccines is not political, but I assure you that Florida will make it political, and thus render tenure worthless even if it is only weakened to "not protect political views."

As I said upthread [or someplace else], I think  the US higher ed sector is too big for efficiency. But aside from that if a state wishes to put the cash into gaining prestige for its publics, that's fine. It's a political decision. Not putting in the cash is fine too. It's a pretty local political decision, as well, which is a great thing.

On average, we're not getting more research productivity from tenure. That's really the result of the empirical work that has been done. Therefore, there must be other reasons for promoting tenure: Self interest is top of my list.

[I think, rather, that my objectivity is coloring my political views. :-)]

[dismalist]

Competition would lead to the right size, contents, and faculty of higher ed even in such an informationally obscure environment because everyone would be incentivized to gather and consider information much more than now.

Right for what purpose?

Best output at least cost.

[quasihumanist]

A former student of mine used to teach at the Florida Institute of Technology, which did not have a tenure system at the time he was hired, and they introduced that after 60 years without it, because they believed it would improve the quality of faculty they could attract,

https://www.chronicle.com/article/lots-of-people-want-to-end-tenure-this-university-wants-to-start-it/

It is simply naive to believe that removing tenure from the University of Florida will not compromise their ability to hire the best faculty, unless they compensate for that by significantly increasing the salaries that they offer.

We're going around in circles. Of course salaries must rise to compensate for job security! And different people will be attracted to academia. Tenure doesn't reduce costs, it hides costs. And tenure doesn't increase research productivity on average.

I've said that both tenure granting schools and non-tenure granting schools will survive, on account higher ed is -- well -- complicated. Each school will have to find the best ways to prosper and survive. Tenure to protect faculty political views in state financed schools is what's objectionable.

The intellectual resistance to competition speaks volumes.

Of course these schools will survive, but what makes you think the University of Florida will be able or willing to raise salaries enough to compensate for their anti-intellectual policies and maintain the quality of their research? The very best faculty have options, particularly in STEM, and no public university is going to be able to compete with the kind of compensation that is available in industry without the lure of tenure. I think you're the one letting your political views color your objectivity.

Belief in climate change is not political, belief in vaccines is not political, but I assure you that Florida will make it political, and thus render tenure worthless even if it is only weakened to "not protect political views."

Florida does not need a high quality research university, and, going strictly by material well being, the majority of Florida's citizens would be better off with a cheaper, lower quality one.

Quality of research does not matter.  Only signalling does.  Only in the long term does it hurt to just cash in on your brand without investing in it, in academia the long term is very long, and in the very long term, we are all dead.

Left to the market, almost all universities become diploma mills.  That's why it shouldn't be left to the market.  (I acknowledge that part of dismalist's argument is that the market always finds a way to win.)

[mleok]

A former student of mine used to teach at the Florida Institute of Technology, which did not have a tenure system at the time he was hired, and they introduced that after 60 years without it, because they believed it would improve the quality of faculty they could attract,

https://www.chronicle.com/article/lots-of-people-want-to-end-tenure-this-university-wants-to-start-it/

It is simply naive to believe that removing tenure from the University of Florida will not compromise their ability to hire the best faculty, unless they compensate for that by significantly increasing the salaries that they offer.

We're going around in circles. Of course salaries must rise to compensate for job security! And different people will be attracted to academia. Tenure doesn't reduce costs, it hides costs. And tenure doesn't increase research productivity on average.

I've said that both tenure granting schools and non-tenure granting schools will survive, on account higher ed is -- well -- complicated. Each school will have to find the best ways to prosper and survive. Tenure to protect faculty political views in state financed schools is what's objectionable.

The intellectual resistance to competition speaks volumes.

Of course these schools will survive, but what makes you think the University of Florida will be able or willing to raise salaries enough to compensate for their anti-intellectual policies and maintain the quality of their research? The very best faculty have options, particularly in STEM, and no public university is going to be able to compete with the kind of compensation that is available in industry without the lure of tenure. I think you're the one letting your political views color your objectivity.

Belief in climate change is not political, belief in vaccines is not political, but I assure you that Florida will make it political, and thus render tenure worthless even if it is only weakened to "not protect political views."

As I said upthread [or someplace else], I think  the US higher ed sector is too big for efficiency. But aside from that if a state wishes to put the cash into gaining prestige for its publics, that's fine. It's a political decision. Not putting in the cash is fine too. It's a pretty local political decision, as well, which is a great thing.

On average, we're not getting more research productivity from tenure. That's really the result of the empirical work that has been done. Therefore, there must be other reasons for promoting tenure: Self interest is top of my list.

[I think, rather, that my objectivity is coloring my political views. :-)]

To be honest, I think there simply isn't enough data to make an informed analysis either way, since having a tenure system affects how one performs pre-tenure as well, as the allure of winning tenure is part of the incentive system pre-tenure. You're right that it will likely also attract different type of people into academia, but again, there is no data to suggest that this would improve the situation. It's also not entirely easy to compare pre- and post- tenure productivity, and ascribe any differences purely to tenure, since there are so many other factors that come into play, like increased service and administrative responsibilities, and as was mentioned the shift post-tenure away from the least publishable unit.

Maybe it's a good thing for US academia that Florida is conducting this experiment since it may clarify the extent to which tenure is important a high-quality research university. All I know is that for me, I would not accept a position in Florida for less than I could command in industry.

[dismalist]

A former student of mine used to teach at the Florida Institute of Technology, which did not have a tenure system at the time he was hired, and they introduced that after 60 years without it, because they believed it would improve the quality of faculty they could attract,

https://www.chronicle.com/article/lots-of-people-want-to-end-tenure-this-university-wants-to-start-it/

It is simply naive to believe that removing tenure from the University of Florida will not compromise their ability to hire the best faculty, unless they compensate for that by significantly increasing the salaries that they offer.

We're going around in circles. Of course salaries must rise to compensate for job security! And different people will be attracted to academia. Tenure doesn't reduce costs, it hides costs. And tenure doesn't increase research productivity on average.

I've said that both tenure granting schools and non-tenure granting schools will survive, on account higher ed is -- well -- complicated. Each school will have to find the best ways to prosper and survive. Tenure to protect faculty political views in state financed schools is what's objectionable.

The intellectual resistance to competition speaks volumes.

Of course these schools will survive, but what makes you think the University of Florida will be able or willing to raise salaries enough to compensate for their anti-intellectual policies and maintain the quality of their research? The very best faculty have options, particularly in STEM, and no public university is going to be able to compete with the kind of compensation that is available in industry without the lure of tenure. I think you're the one letting your political views color your objectivity.

Belief in climate change is not political, belief in vaccines is not political, but I assure you that Florida will make it political, and thus render tenure worthless even if it is only weakened to "not protect political views."

Florida does not need a high quality research university, and, going strictly by material well being, the majority of Florida's citizens would be better off with a cheaper, lower quality one.

Quality of research does not matter.  Only signalling does.  Only in the long term does it hurt to just cash in on your brand without investing in it, in academia the long term is very long, and in the very long term, we are all dead.

Left to the market, almost all universities become diploma mills.  That's why it shouldn't be left to the market.  (I acknowledge that part of dismalist's argument is that the market always finds a way to win.)

I'm with you half way, as usual, quasi. Florida can decide whatever the hell it wants to finance.

The market will not produce diploma mills because everyone knows they are diploma mills and the credentials are worthless and the mills will die. That's what happened to the US for profit education sector, and it died pretty fast. Only useful stuff will survive. That can be for profit, of course.

As I said upthread: it's complicated. One aspect of a non-profit is: We won't cheat you too much, on account we can't take home the profits! So, let the non-profits compete more by abandoning the current form of tenure for a coupla' publics.

Remember, this discussion started off about tenure, not about the most efficient higher ed system. To reassure all, no one has offered me the post of university president so far, not the post of higher education czar. The underlings would probably kill me.

[mleok]

A former student of mine used to teach at the Florida Institute of Technology, which did not have a tenure system at the time he was hired, and they introduced that after 60 years without it, because they believed it would improve the quality of faculty they could attract,

https://www.chronicle.com/article/lots-of-people-want-to-end-tenure-this-university-wants-to-start-it/

It is simply naive to believe that removing tenure from the University of Florida will not compromise their ability to hire the best faculty, unless they compensate for that by significantly increasing the salaries that they offer.

We're going around in circles. Of course salaries must rise to compensate for job security! And different people will be attracted to academia. Tenure doesn't reduce costs, it hides costs. And tenure doesn't increase research productivity on average.

I've said that both tenure granting schools and non-tenure granting schools will survive, on account higher ed is -- well -- complicated. Each school will have to find the best ways to prosper and survive. Tenure to protect faculty political views in state financed schools is what's objectionable.

The intellectual resistance to competition speaks volumes.

Of course these schools will survive, but what makes you think the University of Florida will be able or willing to raise salaries enough to compensate for their anti-intellectual policies and maintain the quality of their research? The very best faculty have options, particularly in STEM, and no public university is going to be able to compete with the kind of compensation that is available in industry without the lure of tenure. I think you're the one letting your political views color your objectivity.

Belief in climate change is not political, belief in vaccines is not political, but I assure you that Florida will make it political, and thus render tenure worthless even if it is only weakened to "not protect political views."

Florida does not need a high quality research university, and, going strictly by material well being, the majority of Florida's citizens would be better off with a cheaper, lower quality one.

Quality of research does not matter.  Only signalling does.  Only in the long term does it hurt to just cash in on your brand without investing in it, in academia the long term is very long, and in the very long term, we are all dead.

Left to the market, almost all universities become diploma mills.  That's why it shouldn't be left to the market.  (I acknowledge that part of dismalist's argument is that the market always finds a way to win.)

The reality is that even without the assault on tenure, many of the red states are adopting social policies that make them increasingly unattractive to knowledge workers, so there's an argument to be made that investing in a high quality research university is a waste of money for such states, since they won't be able to use their flagship universities to anchor a knowledge economy anyway.

[dismalist]

...

To be honest, I think there simply isn't enough data to make an informed analysis either way, since having a tenure system affects how one performs pre-tenure as well, as the allure of winning tenure is part of the incentive system pre-tenure. You're right that it will likely also attract different type of people into academia, but again, there is no data to suggest that this would improve the situation. It's also not entirely easy to compare pre- and post- tenure productivity, and ascribe any differences purely to tenure, since there are so many other factors that come into play, like increased service and administrative responsibilities, and as was mentioned the shift post-tenure away from the least publishable unit.

Maybe it's a good thing for US academia that Florida is conducting this experiment since it may clarify the extent to which tenure is important a high-quality research university. All I know is that for me, I would not accept a position in Florida for less than I could command in industry.

Absolutely, mleok! A coupla' articles, one of which is not cool, proves not that tenure doesn't work. It shows that it's doubtful that tenure works. The Florida experiment will be one more observation. Helpful, but not determinative.

I would never have accepted a position in Florida for less than I could command in DC. Too hot! :-)

The reality is that even without the assault on tenure, many of the red states are adopting social policies that make them increasingly unattractive to knowledge workers, so there's an argument to be made that investing in a high quality research university is a waste of money for such states, since they won't be able to use their flagship universities to anchor a knowledge economy anyway.

Fantastic! Competition, not your knowledge or mine, will settle this, too!