Texas Bill Nukes Tenure

[dismalist]

One must understand how competition works. Seems to be a dirty word to some.

Doesn't "competition" suggest that, of two jobs with comparable pay, the one with more non-monetary compensation will be more attractive, and thus competition for it will be fiercer than for the job with less non-monetary compensation? The end result would be fewer applicants, and applicants of lower overall quality, for the job that offers less.

People differ in their tastes: Some value an extra dollar more, some value extra safety more, some value freedom from DEI more. So long as quality of researcher is not too highly correlated with desire for safety, nor with desire for DEI, non-tenure offering places will prosper if there's too much DEI offered by the competitors.

These differences were already baked into the prior state of the competition between Texas and other states. It's not as if the DEI statement requirement in California is new, and all we're saying is that the removal of tenure makes Texas less competitive than it was. But keep trying to defend an indefensible position. Are you backpeddling now on your claimed negative correlation between desire for tenure and the quality of the researcher?

You are not following the argument, misrepresenting it, and making logical errors. You're also weak on facts.

As I've said to only a very few others, I'm not trying to convince you, just to convey. You are not alone.

[mleok]

One must understand how competition works. Seems to be a dirty word to some.

Doesn't "competition" suggest that, of two jobs with comparable pay, the one with more non-monetary compensation will be more attractive, and thus competition for it will be fiercer than for the job with less non-monetary compensation? The end result would be fewer applicants, and applicants of lower overall quality, for the job that offers less.

People differ in their tastes: Some value an extra dollar more, some value extra safety more, some value freedom from DEI more. So long as quality of researcher is not too highly correlated with desire for safety, nor with desire for DEI, non-tenure offering places will prosper if there's too much DEI offered by the competitors.

These differences were already baked into the prior state of the competition between Texas and other states. It's not as if the DEI statement requirement in California is new, and all we're saying is that the removal of tenure makes Texas less competitive than it was. But keep trying to defend an indefensible position. Are you backpeddling now on your claimed negative correlation between desire for tenure and the quality of the researcher?

You are not following the argument, misrepresenting it, and making logical errors. You're also weak on facts.

As I've said to only a very few others, I'm not trying to convince you, just to convey. You are not alone.

What are you conveying? Where are the facts to back you up?

[Wahoo Redux]

CHE: Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate

[ciao_yall]

CHE: Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate

No more "permanent employee" status? So... all administrators, professors, employees now need to be run through Kelly Temps?

[mleok]

CHE: Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate

No more "permanent employee" status? So... all administrators, professors, employees now need to be run through Kelly Temps?

According to dismalist, those National Academy members, and Nobel laureates will be knocking down UT's door, what a joke!

[ciao_yall]

CHE: Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate

No more "permanent employee" status? So... all administrators, professors, employees now need to be run through Kelly Temps?

According to dismalist, those National Academy members, and Nobel laureates will be knocking down UT's door, what a joke!

Exactly. Because academic freedom is for woke-beta-wimps.

[Parasaurolophus]

CHE: Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate

No more "permanent employee" status? So... all administrators, professors, employees now need to be run through Kelly Temps?

Wow. That's... gonna hurt.

[Wahoo Redux]

IHE: What Ending Tenure Would Mean to Texas

The only problem with this article is that it should've been published in a mainstream publication and read by people who do not understand the tenure process or what it means to have tenure.  Ebbeler is preaching to the choir here.

Tenure is both a recognition of an outstanding record of teaching, research and service and an investment in the future of the individual faculty member's career. It is also what undergirds the university's ability to continue to offer our students, both undergraduate and graduate, the consistent, world-class education that they deserve. It is what attracts applications from top graduate students. Every Texas student has the opportunity to be taught by faculty who have been deemed experts in their area of research.

She does rebut the famous wingnut "think tank" which spends its thinking hours trying to find ways to justify wingnutty theories about [whatever].

Adam Kissel, a senior fellow at the Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy, visiting fellow on higher education reform at the Heritage Foundation and, since October 2020, a visiting scholar at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, was invited to testify to the Senate Higher Education subcommittee regarding SB 18. He suggested that "Without tenure, institutions will find new ways to attract, retain and promote top talent. That's because tenure is not the only thing that professors value. They are willing to exchange tenure for other things. It could be higher salary. It could be the university promises to attract the top graduate students in the world to work with you. There's a lot of ways to do this."

With all due respect to Kissel, he is wrong. If there were "a lot of ways to do this," they would have been done long ago by other institutions. Faculty members put an extraordinary value on tenure. If professors wanted to maximize their income, they would not have decided to work in academia. Many of us have chosen to remain at a Texas public university when offered more remunerative positions by other universities. We are passionate about teaching the young adults of Texas to master skills, including critical thinking and communication. We are passionate about the research work we do. We work nights, weekends, holidays, all summer long because we are intrinsically motivated. We are not driven by financial incentives but by a desire to make a difference in the lives of our students and to advance the research in our chosen fields of expertise.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Most policymakers and nearly all of the public don't understand tenure - what it is, why it exists, what sorts of incentives it creates, etc. - and their reasons for "nuking" it mostly reflect that ignorance. That isn't to say that there couldn't be a thoughtful discussion about this in the public sphere, but that is not the discussion that is being had.

[mleok]

Most policymakers and nearly all of the public don't understand tenure - what it is, why it exists, what sorts of incentives it creates, etc. - and their reasons for "nuking" it mostly reflect that ignorance. That isn't to say that there couldn't be a thoughtful discussion about this in the public sphere, but that is not the discussion that is being had.

Heck, as this thread demonstrates, there are academics who don't seem to understand it, so it's no surprise that the public has a problem with it. Maybe the right comparison is to the tenure of federal judges, but I'm not sure tenure for the federal judiciary is particular popular either.

[apl68]

Most policymakers and nearly all of the public don't understand tenure - what it is, why it exists, what sorts of incentives it creates, etc. - and their reasons for "nuking" it mostly reflect that ignorance. That isn't to say that there couldn't be a thoughtful discussion about this in the public sphere, but that is not the discussion that is being had.

Heck, as this thread demonstrates, there are academics who don't seem to understand it, so it's no surprise that the public has a problem with it. Maybe the right comparison is to the tenure of federal judges, but I'm not sure tenure for the federal judiciary is particular popular either.

It's an uphill battle to defend something that the general public doesn't understand or feel any reason to sympathize with.  I suspect that tenure's survival up to now has largely been due to inertia--it hasn't been much worth anybody's while to go to the trouble of getting rid of it.  Now that it has become a political football, that seems to be changing. 

[mythbuster]

North Carolina wants to join the eliminating tenure party. What a boon for Duke, Wake Forest, and Davidson. They will be able to cherry pick from their neighbors,

https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article274596256.html

[Mobius]

I don't see that happening. None of these places will have extra lines to hand out. You might get a few  moving over since it only applies to those wanting tenure in the future.

North Carolina wants to join the eliminating tenure party. What a boon for Duke, Wake Forest, and Davidson. They will be able to cherry pick from their neighbors,

https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article274596256.html

[Bbmaj7b5]

Frankly, I hope that they pass it! 
It would not come into effect until, if I understand things, until 2024, though there are some peculiarities with the TX contract system (dont get me started!!)

Would anyone leave? No, anyone here now would still have tenure, or be able to earn it.  Only new hires would be the issue.
Would good hires stop applying?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Would they continue to apply, but with a desire to have a higher wage to compensate for the risk?  What would the contracts look like? Even without tenure, there would be some contractual protections (it would not be one year contracts with no notice of non renewal. (And if they WERE , THEN no one would apply anymore!) 

sometimes you have to give Admincritters and (worse) Political Hemorrhoids  (inflamed assholes) EVERYTHING that they ask for!  Let them learn the hard way about 'the other shoe' and how their policies really work in practice!

I'm a tenured prof in Texas. If it were to pass, I cannot imagine what this institution would look like in five years.

This issue isn't existential for everyone, you know?

[Bbmaj7b5]

Dismalist is arguing hard that nuking tenure would not be so bad. He says the market is already saturated so people will take bad jobs because they don't have much alternative (true in some fields, untrue in others), he says that wages may come up to offset the benefits of tenure (maybe), he says top scholars don't care about tenure anyway (doubtful). Ok. Not very convincing, imo, but not an unreasonable perspective either.

But what I'm not seeing is any explanation as to why "nuking" tenure would be beneficial. It seems like FLA and Texas officials hope to use this to fire professors that say things they don't like. It also seems that a KPI based system would incentivize quantity over quality and unethical conduct to produce results. While lots of people see tenure as protecting deadwood professors, there isn't any research that I am aware of that shows this to be the case, and the Texas proposal would grandfather in all the tenured folks already, so it wouldn't help in that regard. Overall, this just seems like a bad policy that, at best, is being defended on the basis that "it won't be so bad."

I would argue that the fields that Texas presumably cares about improving their research quality on, those that are drivers of economic growth, are fields where the competition with industry is extremely strong, and the gap between academic and non-academic salaries are incredibly large. Again, which rational actor will choose an insecure academic job for a poor academic salary when they can less an equally insecure (I would actually say less insecure since companies are economically as opposed to ideologically driven) position with a substantially higher salary.

Texas has spent a lot to quickly improve the rankings of their flagships by instituting various programs to attract National Academy members, which is I guess one way to do it.