Texas Bill Nukes Tenure

[downer]

Generally I favor simple less paranoid hypotheses. However, when it comes to Republican conservatives, it seems that more paranoia is justified.

[mleok]

Although it is a complicated situation in the UK and a different political climate, tenure was abolished in the UK in 1988. There is a helpful article about it here https://mikeotsuka.medium.com/is-there-academic-tenure-in-the-uk-93aecc388616

Would the removal of tenure and the institution of post-tenure review really cause massive exodus from Texas public universities? It probably depends a great deal on how it is done.

If the crazy politicians get their way and start getting rid of people for arbitary reasons, it's easy to see how anyone who could leave would leave. But it is also possible to envisage the policy change not having a massive effect on how many faculty leave. For those who have to survive on getting grants, tenure has long been mostly irrelevant.

No, it won't cause a mass exodus, but the very best will be cherry picked. The irony is that such a policy will increase the fraction of deadwood left in the Texas public university system, because the highly productive faculty with options will leave.

[dismalist]

Although it is a complicated situation in the UK and a different political climate, tenure was abolished in the UK in 1988. There is a helpful article about it here https://mikeotsuka.medium.com/is-there-academic-tenure-in-the-uk-93aecc388616

Would the removal of tenure and the institution of post-tenure review really cause massive exodus from Texas public universities? It probably depends a great deal on how it is done.

If the crazy politicians get their way and start getting rid of people for arbitary reasons, it's easy to see how anyone who could leave would leave. But it is also possible to envisage the policy change not having a massive effect on how many faculty leave. For those who have to survive on getting grants, tenure has long been mostly irrelevant.

No, it won't cause a mass exodus, but the very cherry best will be picked. The irony is that such a policy will increase the fraction of deadwood left in the Texas public university system, because the highly productive faculty with options will leave.

Tenure isn't worth much to the current very best.

Anyway, the law forsees abolishing tenure for new hires, not for existing tenured faculty. This means less risk averse people would apply for faculty jobs in Texas publics. More gambles, more wins. Higher quality.

[Caracal]

Anyway, the law forsees abolishing tenure for new hires, not for existing tenured faculty. This means less risk averse people would apply for faculty jobs in Texas publics. More gambles, more wins. Higher quality.

I can't see how that would work unless there was also a plan to increase salaries and/or have more merit based raises or something. People don't take greater risks unless you up the reward.

[dismalist]

Anyway, the law forsees abolishing tenure for new hires, not for existing tenured faculty. This means less risk averse people would apply for faculty jobs in Texas publics. More gambles, more wins. Higher quality.

I can't see how that would work unless there was also a plan to increase salaries and/or have more merit based raises or something. People don't take greater risks unless you up the reward.

In general yes, of course, but this is a particular case: It's not as though there is a shortage of people wishing to work in academia. Whole armies wish to. The amenities associated with working in academia are great enough to compensate the less risk averse individuals sufficiently already.

So, fewer highly risk averse people apply for jobs, but not so much fewer less risk averse people. Leaving more individuals who are less risk averse to fill the jobs.

Simplifying away from risk, removing tenure is like a wage cut. If they're lining up to work, a wage cut will not cause a production problem.

[mleok]

Anyway, the law forsees abolishing tenure for new hires, not for existing tenured faculty. This means less risk averse people would apply for faculty jobs in Texas publics. More gambles, more wins. Higher quality.

I can't see how that would work unless there was also a plan to increase salaries and/or have more merit based raises or something. People don't take greater risks unless you up the reward.

In general yes, of course, but this is a particular case: It's not as though there is a shortage of people wishing to work in academia. Whole armies wish to. The amenities associated with working in academia are great enough to compensate the less risk averse individuals sufficiently already.

So, fewer highly risk averse people apply for jobs, but not so much fewer less risk averse people. Leaving more individuals who are less risk averse to fill the jobs.

Simplifying away from risk, removing tenure is like a wage cut. If they're lining up to work, a wage cut will not cause a production problem.

That's a substantial oversimplification, since the oversupply means that the hiring filter is far more stringent than any self-selection based on risk adversity. If anything, Dunning–Kruger effect might well mean that you have an overrepresentation of mediocre candiates in the self-selected pool of "less risk adverse" candidates. In any case, a permanent position without tenure is still a step up from a contingent or postdoctoral position. In practice, most people in such positions will still apply, but they're far less likely to accept an offer from Texas if they have any other viable options. TLDR; only a fool will think this will improve the outcomes for top ranked Texan public universities.

For me, if I was "less risk adverse," I would just work in industry. Why live in Texas and put up with Texan BS for peanuts?

[dismalist]

Anyway, the law forsees abolishing tenure for new hires, not for existing tenured faculty. This means less risk averse people would apply for faculty jobs in Texas publics. More gambles, more wins. Higher quality.

I can't see how that would work unless there was also a plan to increase salaries and/or have more merit based raises or something. People don't take greater risks unless you up the reward.

In general yes, of course, but this is a particular case: It's not as though there is a shortage of people wishing to work in academia. Whole armies wish to. The amenities associated with working in academia are great enough to compensate the less risk averse individuals sufficiently already.

So, fewer highly risk averse people apply for jobs, but not so much fewer less risk averse people. Leaving more individuals who are less risk averse to fill the jobs.

Simplifying away from risk, removing tenure is like a wage cut. If they're lining up to work, a wage cut will not cause a production problem.

That's a substantial oversimplification, since the oversupply means that the hiring filter is far more stringent than any self-selection based on risk adversity. If anything, Dunning–Kruger effect might well mean that you have an overrepresentation of mediocre candiates in the self-selected pool of "less risk adverse" candidates. In any case, a permanent position without tenure is still a step up from a contingent or postdoctoral position. In practice, most people in such positions will still apply, but they're far less likely to accept an offer from Texas if they have any other viable options. TLDR; only a fool will think this will improve the outcomes for top ranked Texan public universities.

For me, if I was "less risk adverse," I would just work in industry. Why live in Texas and put up with Texan BS for peanuts?

The choosers are also subject to Dunning-Kruger, and always have been.

There seems to be an implicit assumption that quality is positively correlated with risk aversion. I don't believe it is. If anything, it's negative. The highly qualified can afford to fear risk less.

So, some fools are right.

[marshwiggle]

Tenure isn't worth much to the current very best.

Anyway, the law forsees abolishing tenure for new hires, not for existing tenured faculty.

This means that the effect it has on applicants will unfold slowly as new positions become available. Universities will be able to adapt (e.g. adjusting salaries) as things ramp up. It won't cause any sort of mass collapse.
If hiring becomes impossible, the government can still change course.

[mleok]

Anyway, the law forsees abolishing tenure for new hires, not for existing tenured faculty. This means less risk averse people would apply for faculty jobs in Texas publics. More gambles, more wins. Higher quality.

I can't see how that would work unless there was also a plan to increase salaries and/or have more merit based raises or something. People don't take greater risks unless you up the reward.

In general yes, of course, but this is a particular case: It's not as though there is a shortage of people wishing to work in academia. Whole armies wish to. The amenities associated with working in academia are great enough to compensate the less risk averse individuals sufficiently already.

So, fewer highly risk averse people apply for jobs, but not so much fewer less risk averse people. Leaving more individuals who are less risk averse to fill the jobs.

Simplifying away from risk, removing tenure is like a wage cut. If they're lining up to work, a wage cut will not cause a production problem.

That's a substantial oversimplification, since the oversupply means that the hiring filter is far more stringent than any self-selection based on risk adversity. If anything, Dunning–Kruger effect might well mean that you have an overrepresentation of mediocre candiates in the self-selected pool of "less risk adverse" candidates. In any case, a permanent position without tenure is still a step up from a contingent or postdoctoral position. In practice, most people in such positions will still apply, but they're far less likely to accept an offer from Texas if they have any other viable options. TLDR; only a fool will think this will improve the outcomes for top ranked Texan public universities.

For me, if I was "less risk adverse," I would just work in industry. Why live in Texas and put up with Texan BS for peanuts?

The choosers are also subject to Dunning-Kruger, and always have been.

There seems to be an implicit assumption that quality is positively correlated with risk aversion. I don't believe it is. If anything, it's negative. The highly qualified can afford to fear risk less.

So, some fools are right.

I did not suggest that quality is postitively correlated with risk aversion, I simply said that all else being equal, one chooses an offer with the better combination of salary and job security. Otherwise, why not just get a job in industry which pays substantially more and has far more resources? I'm not sure which economic model of utility you're using to justify your claims, but intentionally decreasing the job security of the position, while keeping everything else constant, is not going to improve the quality of the candidates you attract, unless your candidates are irrational.

[mleok]

Being less risk averse just means that one places a smaller weight not job security, not that one places a negative weight on job security. Nobody rational is more attracted to a job simply because it has less job security, rather, it because such positions (at least in industry) have a high salary and greater prospects for salary increases.

[Wahoo Redux]

I very much doubt that DeSatan cares about the quality of his state's professors.  That's where the crux lies.  Other people probably do.

[dismalist]

Being less risk averse just means that one places a smaller weight not job security, not that one places a negative weight on job security. Nobody rational is more attracted to a job simply because it has less job security, rather, it because such positions (at least in industry) have a high salary and greater prospects for salary increases.

In  the general case, of course. But with the more risk averse gone from the applicant pool, the less risk averse will get more jobs. More gambles, more wins. And applicants there will be, for even without tenure, a job in the academy beats a job in the factory at the same money wage.

[Sun_Worshiper]

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."

[dismalist]

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."

Nuking tenure would even be good! A different type of person would be attracted to academia. Now, wages would indeed have to adjust upwards if tenure were some kind of market desired safety mechanism. It is not. It is the product of an interest group. Hence, cutting the safety component, and lowering the full wage in academia, would not detract from the desirability of working in academia for some types of people.

We got billions of adjuncts out there ready to take anyone's place! They can even compete down the wages and benefits of the tenured.

In teaching, there's no contest. In research, well, the good ones won't leave, so for the rest, the lottery begins anew, this time with better chances for the not-so-risk averse.

[mleok]

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."

Nuking tenure would even be good! A different type of person would be attracted to academia. Now, wages would indeed have to adjust upwards if tenure were some kind of market desired safety mechanism. It is not. It is the product of an interest group. Hence, cutting the safety component, and lowering the full wage in academia, would not detract from the desirability of working in academia for some types of people.

We got billions of adjuncts out there ready to take anyone's place! They can even compete down the wages and benefits of the tenured.

In teaching, there's no contest. In research, well, the good ones won't leave, so for the rest, the lottery begins anew, this time with better chances for the not-so-risk averse.

Yes, it would attract irrational people who are willing to trade job security for nothing in return. Give me a higher salary, and a faster salary progression scale at the expense of tenure, that would be a rational option, but you would have to offer salaries much more comparable to industry salaries, which in my field are about a factor of three or four higher.