Texas Bill Nukes Tenure

[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.

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.

What you call less risk averse, I call irrational. It's arguable that this would be better for Texas. But whatever, I live in California, so I'm not exactly rooting for Texas to succeed, and they seem perfectly capable of shooting themselves in the foot.

[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.

What you call less risk averse, I call irrational. It's arguable that this would be better for Texas. But whatever, I live in California, so I'm not exactly rooting for Texas to succeed, and they seem perfectly capable of shooting themselves in the foot.

You can call it whatever you want. :-)

[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."

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.

[downer]

There were lots of predictions of a brain drain from the UK after Brexit. But I haven't seen any clear evidence that happened.

Does anyone have a way to measure the effects on higher ed when a state does something like abolish tenure? Has cause and effect ever been established?

[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."

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.

None of this is an explanation for why it would be good. And some of what you are saying is nonsensical.

Here are your points:
(1) A different type of person would be attracted to academia... why is that good? What evidence do we have to suggest that this type of person would be better at teaching or research?

(2) So wages would not go up... that sounds bad. Why would it be good to cut wages in academia and also take away people's job security? Who is this supposed to be good for?

(3) In teaching there is no contest... no contest in terms of what?

(4) In research the good ones won't leave... what?

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.

So the point is to drive all the good people out of academia?

Ok, I buy that this could be a goal. I'm not following why that would be a good policy though.

[kaysixteen]

Thing is, although Texas, unlike Florida, has a first-rate flagship state uni and a decent pub higher ed system in general, many actual (mostly rural and GOP-voter) Texans probably just do not care if the abolition of tenure nukes the pub higher ed system there, and many might even applaud such an outcome, such has become the general antipathy towards college ed amongst many Repubs.

[Sun_Worshiper]

There were lots of predictions of a brain drain from the UK after Brexit. But I haven't seen any clear evidence that happened.

Does anyone have a way to measure the effects on higher ed when a state does something like abolish tenure? Has cause and effect ever been established?

That is a good question. It will make for a great study if a state manages to abolish tenure successfully.

Systematically different situation in the UK though, since there will be many other US states that working academics can more easily move to and that top graduate students can select.

[dismalist]

Here are your points:
(1) A different type of person would be attracted to academia... why is that good? What evidence do we have to suggest that this type of person would be better at teaching or research?

Less risk averse people. Take more chances. More good things come out. Bad people are replaced.

(2) So wages would not go up... that sounds bad. Why would it be good to cut wages in academia and also take away people's job security? Who is this supposed to be good for?

Good for everybody except academics. :-)

(3) In teaching there is no contest... no contest in terms of what?

Teaching quality. Mercy, there are so many adjuncts. Some must be good teachers.

(4) In research the good ones won't leave... what?

No reason for the good people to leave. They won't lose their jobs.

[mleok]

Less risk averse people. Take more chances. More good things come out. Bad people are replaced.

You still haven't explained why a less risk averse person would choose academia over industry, when the salary is three to four times as high.

[dismalist]

Less risk averse people. Take more chances. More good things come out. Bad people are replaced.

You still haven't explained why a less risk averse person would choose academia over industry, when the salary is three to four times as high.

'Cause working in academia is lovely. Risk will be no higher than in industry.

The clincher is that potential academics are lining up. They can't all be highly risk averse.

[jimbogumbo]

There are NOT tons of adjuncts in the hard sciences and math that can do research. I've said it before, but as long as the US depends on universities to produce high quality research in hard sciences and math ANYTHING that is perceived to make the job less desirable (including doing away with tenure) is, imho, a bad thing.

Note: I no longer personally have a need for tenure as an old retired person.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Here are your points:
(1) A different type of person would be attracted to academia... why is that good? What evidence do we have to suggest that this type of person would be better at teaching or research?

Less risk averse people. Take more chances. More good things come out. Bad people are replaced.

(2) So wages would not go up... that sounds bad. Why would it be good to cut wages in academia and also take away people's job security? Who is this supposed to be good for?

Good for everybody except academics. :-)

(3) In teaching there is no contest... no contest in terms of what?

Teaching quality. Mercy, there are so many adjuncts. Some must be good teachers.

(4) In research the good ones won't leave... what?

No reason for the good people to leave. They won't lose their jobs.

I hope this is all just a glib joke, because it is ridiculously shallow.

My only question is, who are these risk averse PhDs that currently aren't seeking tenure track jobs? What are they up to now? Why would they want a job with poor job security and low pay?

The rest of these points aren't even serious enough to respond to.

[dismalist]

My only question is, who are these risk averse PhDs that currently aren't seeking tenure track jobs? What are they up to now? Why would they want a job with poor job security and low pay?

The less risk averse are applying already. Having fewer more risk averse applicants leaves extra room for these people.

My point is that the best don't value tenure.

[mleok]

My point is that the best don't value tenure.

Assuming facts not in evidence. I've never seen a Nobel Prize winner prefer a research scientist position without tenure than a distinguished professorship with tenure, the ones that do are at private research institutions, not universities. Put another way, the only excellent people who I've seen give up tenure have done so to go into industry for substantially more lucrative positions.

[mleok]

Less risk averse people. Take more chances. More good things come out. Bad people are replaced.

You still haven't explained why a less risk averse person would choose academia over industry, when the salary is three to four times as high.

'Cause working in academia is lovely. Risk will be no higher than in industry.

The clincher is that potential academics are lining up. They can't all be highly risk averse.

I would argue that the main appeal of academia is tenure. If the risk is the same as in industry, why not get paid boatloads more instead in industry? Seriously, as a economist, you should realize that tenure has economic value to the person who holds it, so giving it up is fine if one receives a higher salary in return, but what kind of fool prefer a position without tenure but still get paid peanuts? That would literally be the worst of both worlds. Go gaslight somewhere else.

I would also argue that even faculty who are currently at the top of their game will likely start to slow down, and benefit from tenure as they age. So only incredibly arrogant and shortsighted faculty ignore the value of tenure entirely.