Texas Bill Nukes Tenure

[mleok]

I see tenure as a form of protection, so that I am able to try more high-risk research initiatives. I also see tenure as protection so that I can say "no" to certain service tasks that my department might ask me to do, which are not of interest to me. I personally have absolutely no problem going to industry, where I would work 8 hours a day/5 days a week and make 3x the money that I am making at a prestigious private R1 as of today. And because I know myself and I will probably be working long hours even in industry, I will be promoted very quickly (and further compensation increases will also come).

I am by no means someone who does not want to work hard. I have several ongoings grants, a large research group, and high-quality research output. However, abolishing tenure will make academia simply not worth it to me (and other productive faculty that can see themselves being employed in fields other than academia). In other words, only people that cannot be employed in any other field will stay in academia. STEM and especially Computer Science/Engineering departments will lose big time and all qualified faculty will transition to industry.

PS: Not to mention that in industry, I will be able to work from home as much as I like or move to much more desirable parts of the country without having to always go to the university when I teach even if the weather out there is deadly.

Indeed, what is the appeal of academia over industry, even for extremely productive and high-performing faculty, if not the protections of tenure and the associated freedom to pursue high-risk research directions?

[ciao_yall]

I see tenure as a form of protection, so that I am able to try more high-risk research initiatives. I also see tenure as protection so that I can say "no" to certain service tasks that my department might ask me to do, which are not of interest to me. I personally have absolutely no problem going to industry, where I would work 8 hours a day/5 days a week and make 3x the money that I am making at a prestigious private R1 as of today. And because I know myself and I will probably be working long hours even in industry, I will be promoted very quickly (and further compensation increases will also come).

I am by no means someone who does not want to work hard. I have several ongoings grants, a large research group, and high-quality research output. However, abolishing tenure will make academia simply not worth it to me (and other productive faculty that can see themselves being employed in fields other than academia). In other words, only people that cannot be employed in any other field will stay in academia. STEM and especially Computer Science/Engineering departments will lose big time and all qualified faculty will transition to industry.

PS: Not to mention that in industry, I will be able to work from home as much as I like or move to much more desirable parts of the country without having to always go to the university when I teach even if the weather out there is deadly.

Indeed, what is the appeal of academia over industry, even for extremely productive and high-performing faculty, if not the protections of tenure and the associated freedom to pursue high-risk research directions?

Other advantages, despite lower salary...

1) College towns may offer a lower cost-of-living in terms of housing and restaurants.
2) These also offer interesting affordable cultural options.
3) Colleagues are interesting intellectually in ways that other industry folks have not been, in my experience.
4) Students are, for the most part, fun and interesting to work with.
5) Intellectual freedom and the chance to think about things in different ways versus always being focused on the bottom line.

[research_prof]

I see tenure as a form of protection, so that I am able to try more high-risk research initiatives. I also see tenure as protection so that I can say "no" to certain service tasks that my department might ask me to do, which are not of interest to me. I personally have absolutely no problem going to industry, where I would work 8 hours a day/5 days a week and make 3x the money that I am making at a prestigious private R1 as of today. And because I know myself and I will probably be working long hours even in industry, I will be promoted very quickly (and further compensation increases will also come).

I am by no means someone who does not want to work hard. I have several ongoings grants, a large research group, and high-quality research output. However, abolishing tenure will make academia simply not worth it to me (and other productive faculty that can see themselves being employed in fields other than academia). In other words, only people that cannot be employed in any other field will stay in academia. STEM and especially Computer Science/Engineering departments will lose big time and all qualified faculty will transition to industry.

PS: Not to mention that in industry, I will be able to work from home as much as I like or move to much more desirable parts of the country without having to always go to the university when I teach even if the weather out there is deadly.

Indeed, what is the appeal of academia over industry, even for extremely productive and high-performing faculty, if not the protections of tenure and the associated freedom to pursue high-risk research directions?

Other advantages, despite lower salary...

1) College towns may offer a lower cost-of-living in terms of housing and restaurants.
2) These also offer interesting affordable cultural options.
3) Colleagues are interesting intellectually in ways that other industry folks have not been, in my experience.
4) Students are, for the most part, fun and interesting to work with.
5) Intellectual freedom and the chance to think about things in different ways versus always being focused on the bottom line.

I am sorry but I do not buy these arguments:

1) In industry (at least for most of the tech/software/research fields), folks are able to work from wherever they like (yes, they can be located in a low cost-of-living college town or in Miami, LA, NYC if they want).
2) Not sure what the interesting affordable cultural options are. If someone is in a big city (e.g., SF or Chicago), there are many more cultural options compared to college towns and if someone makes 3x the salary of a professor, they can definitely afford them.
3) In academia, there are folks that are dead wood and folks that are "intellectually interesting" as you put it. In industry, the situation is pretty much the same. Considering the current state of the economy, industry has been pushing hard to eliminate dead wood and keep only productive folks around.
4) This is questionable at best. Yes, my grad students (at least most of them) are fun to work with. Entitled undergrads are definitely not fun to work with.
5) Well, again it depends where you are in industry. If you are a research scientist, yes you need to align with the broader interests of the company, but you can do research in whatever you find interesting as long as there is potential for the company to make money out of that. This is pretty similar to what faculty that run after grants and federal funding do as well.

[mleok]

Other advantages, despite lower salary...

1) College towns may offer a lower cost-of-living in terms of housing and restaurants.
2) These also offer interesting affordable cultural options.
3) Colleagues are interesting intellectually in ways that other industry folks have not been, in my experience.
4) Students are, for the most part, fun and interesting to work with.
5) Intellectual freedom and the chance to think about things in different ways versus always being focused on the bottom line.

Nothing prevents you from living in a college town if you work in industry, and places with good restaurants and culture tend to be expensive anyway, even if they happen to be college towns. Like research_prof, I find my graduate students to be fun and interesting to work with, undergraduates much less so. As for intellectual freedom and the chance to think about things in different ways, I think that is tied closely to the protections of tenure, and without it, I see the pressure to become much more focused on the bottom line, just like in industry.

As for intellectual colleagues, I've found the best researchers in industry that I've collaborated with to be equally interesting intellectually as my academic colleagues, and to be much less intellectually narrow. I would argue that academia allows researchers to become extremely narrow and focused, which make these people less interesting to talk to unless you happen to be in the same narrow specialization.

[Parasaurolophus]

The main advantages, from my perspective, are (1) the long periods of time off (even though I personally seldom get them, they're standard fare for the sector), (2) flexible work schedules (including remote work in my case, though obviously that's not true of most), and (3) generally better pension and leave policies (again, even though mine has tried to cheat me out of $20k).

You may find comparable advantages in some industries, but it's pretty rare, especially the whole caboodle. And those industries are not open to most of the rest of us.

[mleok]

The main advantages, from my perspective, are (1) the long periods of time off (even though I personally seldom get them, they're standard fare for the sector), (2) flexible work schedules (including remote work in my case, though obviously that's not true of most), and (3) generally better pension and leave policies (again, even though mine has tried to cheat me out of $20k).

You may find comparable advantages in some industries, but it's pretty rare, especially the whole caboodle. And those industries are not open to most of the rest of us.

"Time off" just means unpaid summers. If you take up a consulting position instead, you could get much time off for the same compensation because the rate of pay is so much higher in industry.

[research_prof]

The main advantages, from my perspective, are (1) the long periods of time off (even though I personally seldom get them, they're standard fare for the sector), (2) flexible work schedules (including remote work in my case, though obviously that's not true of most), and (3) generally better pension and leave policies (again, even though mine has tried to cheat me out of $20k).

You may find comparable advantages in some industries, but it's pretty rare, especially the whole caboodle. And those industries are not open to most of the rest of us.

Better pension policies maybe, especially 401 employer matching contributions. However, in industry, because of higher salaries, the overall retirement contributions will be higher, so this will not matter in the long run. About the flexible work schedule, I only have to say the following: indeed, I have to work 7 days every week, but I can definitely select which 7 days of the week (hint: a week has 7 days).

[downer]

What proportion of humanties professors are in a position to take up consulting positions? Or this this just a discussion about engineering?

[bio-nonymous]

What proportion of humanties professors are in a position to take up consulting positions? Or this this just a discussion about engineering?

I don't think consulting is a huge option for many folks and disciplines in STEM either (at least in life sciences), with many exceptions of course.

I also have to chime in about the "if you are in industry you can work from anywhere" thing as well. Perhaps it is easy to live anywhere and work remotely in certain sectors of technology, math, software engineering or so forth. However, if you are in biotech and you are running a lab, you need to be where the lab is--potentially Boston or South San Francisco, for example. Yes you will make lots of money, but you will also be living in super-high-cost-of-living areas--and can be let go at any time if the directors/board decides to go a different direction (even if you ALMOST have your target). Exceptions abound of course...

[Parasaurolophus]

Like I said, you can find comparable advantages in some industries. But those aren't open to all of us.

As for flexible work hours: I teach 8-10 courses a year. But even in-person, I'm scheduled for just three hours a day, four days a week (sometimes just three). And I can cancel at a moment's notice without having to clear it with anyone. Everything else is at my leisure

Research, of course, is on my own time and my own dime. But that's because I don't work at a research institution.

Edit for clarity: this was posted at the same time as the_geneticist made their post. It's not a reply to that!

[mleok]

Like I said, you can find comparable advantages in some industries. But those aren't open to all of us.

As for flexible work hours: I teach 8-10 courses a year. But even in-person, I'm scheduled for just three hours a day, four days a week (sometimes just three). And I can cancel at a moment's notice without having to clear it with anyone. Everything else is at my leisure

Research, of course, is on my own time and my own dime. But that's because I don't work at a research institution.

Edit for clarity: this was posted at the same time as the_geneticist made their post. It's not a reply to that!

But, if we're truly comparing options that are open, then we need to confront the reality that permanent positions that balance teaching and research are increasingly limited in academia, with or without tenure, and that one often has no choice in where one ends up living. Put another way, I would much rather see my former graduate students and postdocs go into industry than being forced to take up a tenure-track position in some remote and obscure university with inadequate resources, or even worse, an adjunct position.

[dismalist]

Like I said, you can find comparable advantages in some industries. But those aren't open to all of us.

...

But academia is open to some working in activities with comparable advantages.

As an example, I know a whole slew of economists, really good economists, working in federal agencies and the Federal Reserve at salaries to make you blink, who would take an academic job if it were available. They already do a lot of research.

But, if we're truly comparing options that are open, then we need to confront the reality that permanent positions that balance teaching and research are increasingly limited in academia, with or without tenure, and that one often has no choice in where one ends up living. Put another way, I would much rather see my former graduate students and postdocs go into industry than being forced to take up a tenure-track position in some remote and obscure university with inadequate resources, or even worse, an adjunct position.

Perhaps some of those students would  rather go to Texas publics than work in industry!

[Wahoo Redux]

What proportion of humanties professors are in a position to take up consulting positions? Or this this just a discussion about engineering?

There is very little "consulting" per se for English-types.

However, a number of my grad school cohort, some who did not finish the doctorate, have other well-paying corporate jobs doing PR or the like.  Some work as editors / copywriters.  I understand they are paid fairly well.

One of my wife's colleagues is tenured Spanish professor.  When the major was cut, she found a job almost immediately working for a local nonprofit doing some sort of outreach----her Spanish fluency may have played a part.  She actually got the job before she finished out this term and "retired."

Another fella we know with a doctorate in Victorian literature dropped out of teaching and worked for a well known professional symphony orchestra doing public relations, grant writing, schmoozing with rich and famous people and the like.  He is very proud of his salary there (which would be hard to replicate with a less-famous orchestra, I assume).

[mleok]

Perhaps some of those students would rather go to Texas publics than work in industry!

The thing you seem to have a hard time getting is few if any faculty will be more attracted to Texas because of the lack of tenure, but they might accept a position there in spite of it if they have no better options, or if Texas increases their salaries to compensate for the lack of tenure. One of my former postdocs is working at one of the Texas publics, but he already has tenure, we'll see if he starts revisiting the job market in the event this bill passes. I have a former student whose first job was at Florida Tech, which originally did not offer tenure, but they started offering tenure because they felt it would be beneficial for their recruitment efforts. With the exception of you, even the most ardent opponents of tenure have the better sense not to argue that the removal of tenure will improve the competitiveness of their faculty recruitment efforts.

[downer]

What proportion of humanties professors are in a position to take up consulting positions? Or this this just a discussion about engineering?

There is very little "consulting" for English-types.

However, a number of my grad school cohort, some who did not finish the doctorate, have other well-paying corporate jobs doing PR or the like.  Some work as editors / copywriters.  I understand they are paid fairly well.

One of my wife's colleagues is tenured Spanish professor.  When the major was cut, she found a job almost immediately working for a local nonprofit doing some sort of outreach----her Spanish fluency may have played a part.  She actually got the job before she finished out this term and "retired."

Another fella we know with a doctorate in Victorian literature dropped out of teaching and worked for a well known professional symphony orchestra doing public relations, grant writing, schmoozing with rich and famous people and the like.  He is very proud of his salary there (which would be hard to replicate with a less-famous orchestra, I assume).

I've met people with English degrees of various sorts who have earned a living as technical writers for large businesses or as freelance workers. I'm not sure how people break into that as mid-career academics though.