Texas Bill Nukes Tenure

[Sun_Worshiper]

Again, all of Dismalists arguments amount to "it won't be the worst thing in the world if tenure goes away," as opposed to "getting rid of tenure is good policy." His arguments for the latter were, at best, laughably shallow. 

And he's misreading the particulars of the situation, which are that (1) the threats to remove tenure appear to be entirely political, such that good academics could indeed see their jobs threatened if their teaching or writing are at odds with the state governments, and (2) tenure would remain in 48 other states, if FLA and Texas legislatures have their way, such that top academics could find new jobs in other states that aren't threatening their tenure benefits. On point 2, it is interesting that the exact logic that conservatives argue drives corporations and rich people to the states with the lowest taxes is exactly applicable here.

My take indeed  is that nothing much will happen in Texas.

I have argued on another thread that tenure does not do what is said it does. As a wise army officer veteran once said to me: Never believe your own propaganda! But that's not for here.

Political interference? Maybe so. But not in STEM. STEMers don't make much trouble. :-) But here too there is a market. The lefties move out and the righties move in!

The arguments for lower State taxes are very partial truths. What's correctly  at issue is the value of services compared to the cost of taxes, not the level of taxes alone. But those specific services must be valued. Maybe a lean Texas public is preferable to a fat California one. This is something for the long run to work out in political competition.

You're probably right in one regard: Nothing will happen in Texas, at least not with this bill, because the House Speaker has opposed it.

But I have yet to read any compelling argument in this thread to suggest that nuking tenure would be good for Texas or for Texans, except perhaps for a few lesser job candidates that would suddenly find themselves competitive for jobs that the very good academics don't want.

As I said upthread, my take is indeed that nothing much will happen in Texas if the bill is passed, which is what we were talking about. The value of tenure in general is not germane here. I wrote against it in another tread.

But aside from substance, the emotions expressed suggests that tenure is seen as a holy grail, not a mere perk. I suppose that's why it's all repeating.

Ok, well we're going to have to agree to disagree on Texas, because I envision the state experiencing a brain drain as top faculty leave, with implications for grant money, for attracting top students, and for innovation.

On your other point, tenure is more than a perk, although it is that too. Tenure is the thing that allows people to undertake high risk research (both risky in terms of the time it takes and in terms of the feathers it may ruffle). It thus carries a societal benefit, while also carrying significant personal benefit to tenured professors.

Top faculty won't leave. Only bottom faculty, maybe. So, yes, we disagree about Texas.

About tenure, too, but that's for another time.

The bolded makes zero sense, but I guess we're not going to convince each other on this one so we can wait and see what happens when/if a state "nukes" tenure.

[dismalist]

Again, all of Dismalists arguments amount to "it won't be the worst thing in the world if tenure goes away," as opposed to "getting rid of tenure is good policy." His arguments for the latter were, at best, laughably shallow. 

And he's misreading the particulars of the situation, which are that (1) the threats to remove tenure appear to be entirely political, such that good academics could indeed see their jobs threatened if their teaching or writing are at odds with the state governments, and (2) tenure would remain in 48 other states, if FLA and Texas legislatures have their way, such that top academics could find new jobs in other states that aren't threatening their tenure benefits. On point 2, it is interesting that the exact logic that conservatives argue drives corporations and rich people to the states with the lowest taxes is exactly applicable here.

My take indeed  is that nothing much will happen in Texas.

I have argued on another thread that tenure does not do what is said it does. As a wise army officer veteran once said to me: Never believe your own propaganda! But that's not for here.

Political interference? Maybe so. But not in STEM. STEMers don't make much trouble. :-) But here too there is a market. The lefties move out and the righties move in!

The arguments for lower State taxes are very partial truths. What's correctly  at issue is the value of services compared to the cost of taxes, not the level of taxes alone. But those specific services must be valued. Maybe a lean Texas public is preferable to a fat California one. This is something for the long run to work out in political competition.

You're probably right in one regard: Nothing will happen in Texas, at least not with this bill, because the House Speaker has opposed it.

But I have yet to read any compelling argument in this thread to suggest that nuking tenure would be good for Texas or for Texans, except perhaps for a few lesser job candidates that would suddenly find themselves competitive for jobs that the very good academics don't want.

As I said upthread, my take is indeed that nothing much will happen in Texas if the bill is passed, which is what we were talking about. The value of tenure in general is not germane here. I wrote against it in another tread.

But aside from substance, the emotions expressed suggests that tenure is seen as a holy grail, not a mere perk. I suppose that's why it's all repeating.

Ok, well we're going to have to agree to disagree on Texas, because I envision the state experiencing a brain drain as top faculty leave, with implications for grant money, for attracting top students, and for innovation.

On your other point, tenure is more than a perk, although it is that too. Tenure is the thing that allows people to undertake high risk research (both risky in terms of the time it takes and in terms of the feathers it may ruffle). It thus carries a societal benefit, while also carrying significant personal benefit to tenured professors.

Top faculty won't leave. Only bottom faculty, maybe. So, yes, we disagree about Texas.

About tenure, too, but that's for another time.

The bolded makes zero sense, but I guess we're not going to convince each other on this one so we can wait and see what happens when/if a state "nukes" tenure.

Top faculty don't need tenure to make them secure, so they value it less than bottom faculty. Much of our disagreement is a disagreement about human nature. But we repeat.

[Sun_Worshiper]

^^ Great, feel free to drop some evidence to back up that assertion.

[dismalist]

^^ Great, feel free to drop some evidence to back up that assertion.

I have some arguments, and make predictions. You have some arguments, and make predictions. We can take them or leave them. Reality will eventually show what is right.

[Wahoo Redux]

^^ Great, feel free to drop some evidence to back up that assertion.

I have some arguments, and make predictions. You have some arguments, and make predictions. We can take them or leave them. Reality will eventually show what is right.

Evidence, Big-D, the cornerstone of academic discourse.

[dismalist]

^^ Great, feel free to drop some evidence to back up that assertion.

I have some arguments, and make predictions. You have some arguments, and make predictions. We can take them or leave them. Reality will eventually show what is right.

Evidence, Big-D, the cornerstone of academic discourse.

I do too much work on this fact free board. You provide the evidence!

[Wahoo Redux]

^^ Great, feel free to drop some evidence to back up that assertion.

I have some arguments, and make predictions. You have some arguments, and make predictions. We can take them or leave them. Reality will eventually show what is right.

Evidence, Big-D, the cornerstone of academic discourse.

I do too much work on this fact free board. You provide the evidence!

Just failed the peer-review, my friend. 

[pondering]

The funny thing is that I provided dismalist with evidence that "top faculty" do, in fact, need tenure to keep them secure in certain scenarios (citing instances of top-performing non-tenured profs in the UK - people who had won huge grants, were excellent researchers, and great teachers - being laid off, as has occurred at world-renowned universities like Leicester and Sheffield). But his view that the fate of faculty is purely the product of rational economic considerations in a free market untainted by non-financial motivations seems to be an article of faith.

[dismalist]

Mercy, sits deep.

[mleok]

But not in STEM. STEMers don't make much trouble. :-)

Umm... climate change research?

[mleok]

Top faculty won't leave. Only bottom faculty, maybe. So, yes, we disagree about Texas.

About tenure, too, but that's for another time.

As far as I can see in my field, the only reason why Texas has top notch faculty is because they are willing to shell out big bucks for the best faculty. My take is moving forward, it's just cost them even more money to retain these faculty members.

As for why the removal of new tenured appointments affect existing tenured faculty, it's because it affects the quality of new junior faculty they can hire, and that makes the university a less interesting and exciting place to be.

[mleok]

The bolded makes zero sense, but I guess we're not going to convince each other on this one so we can wait and see what happens when/if a state "nukes" tenure.

Wisconsin already suffered a brain drain because of Scott Walker's assult on tenure. Many excellent out-of-state universities were cherry picking the best Wisconsin faculty members.

[mleok]

Top faculty won't leave. Only bottom faculty, maybe. So, yes, we disagree about Texas.

That's another incredibly idiotic statement, only the top faculty have the option to leave, and the removal of tenure makes it cheaper for out-of-state universities to cherry pick the best. The bottom faculty don't have an option to leave, at least not to a roughly comparable institution.

[mleok]

Top faculty don't need tenure to make them secure, so they value it less than bottom faculty. Much of our disagreement is a disagreement about human nature. But we repeat.

Perhaps you need to clarify what you mean by top faculty, do you only mean Nobel laureates, Fields medalists, National Academy members, or something more pedestrian, like the top 20% of faculty? If you're saying that the top 1% of faculty don't need tenure to make then secure, I could perhaps believe that, but that still doesn't mean that they're willing to give up tenure for nothing in return.

[dismalist]

Top faculty don't need tenure to make them secure, so they value it less than bottom faculty. Much of our disagreement is a disagreement about human nature. But we repeat.

Perhaps you need to clarify what you mean by top faculty, do you only mean Nobel laureates, Fields medalists, National Academy members, or something more pedestrian, like the top 20% of faculty? If you're saying that the top 1% of faculty don't need tenure to make then secure, I could perhaps believe that, but that still doesn't mean that they're willing to give up tenure for nothing in return.

The higher the quality, the less demand for tenure.