Texas Bill Nukes Tenure

[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.

The higher the quality, the less demand for tenure.

Kudos for avoiding the question.

[ciao_yall]

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

Umm... climate change research?

Evolution?

Stem cells?

Biological origins of gender and gender expression?

[dismalist]

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

Umm... climate change research?

Evolution?

Stem cells?

Biological origins of gender and gender expression?

It's important to realize that it's not tenure which makes all these things possible, but competition. That's what keeps universities on their toes in the quest for prestige.

Political interference in a faculty retention process that replaces tenure would make retention unpredictable to potential faculty. Being "good" would no longer suffice. I doubt Texas would interfere politically for that reason. But if it did, the science would not go down the tubes as there is competition.

[mleok]

I doubt Texas would interfere politically for that reason. But if it did, the science would not go down the tubes as there is competition.

Then you don't understand the first thing about the motivation for Texas to introduce this law, or the consequences it'll have for science in Texas. But, you're right science will not go down the tubes, other states will pick up the slack, but Texas science will. As it is other countries, like Singapore, have capitalized on the US's politically driven restrictions on stem cell research to poach some of our best scientists.

At this point, you're throwing out the equivalent of "thoughts and prayers" for Texan public universities than any real reasoned and substantiated arguments.

[dismalist]

I doubt Texas would interfere politically for that reason. But if it did, the science would not go down the tubes as there is competition.

Then you don't understand the first thing about the motivation for Texas to introduce this law, or the consequences it'll have for science in Texas. But, you're right science will not go down the tubes, other states will pick up the slack, but Texas science will. As it is other countries, like Singapore, have capitalized on the US's politically driven restrictions on stem cell research to poach some of our best scientists.

At this point, you're throwing out the equivalent of "thoughts and prayers" for Texan public universities than any real reasoned and substantiated arguments.

I've been addressing the specific issue in the title of this thread Texas Bill Nukes Tenure, not the deep wishes of the Texas legislature. My claim is that it will have little to no effect.

While I said that political interference would hurt the Texas publics, it could go the other way! Kicking out some subjects would  repel some faculty and potential facukty, of course, but it might well attract others.

As I also said upthread, that would have to be worked out by political competition in the long run.

[ciao_yall]

I doubt Texas would interfere politically for that reason. But if it did, the science would not go down the tubes as there is competition.

Then you don't understand the first thing about the motivation for Texas to introduce this law, or the consequences it'll have for science in Texas. But, you're right science will not go down the tubes, other states will pick up the slack, but Texas science will. As it is other countries, like Singapore, have capitalized on the US's politically driven restrictions on stem cell research to poach some of our best scientists.

At this point, you're throwing out the equivalent of "thoughts and prayers" for Texan public universities than any real reasoned and substantiated arguments.

I've been addressing the specific issue in the title of this thread Texas Bill Nukes Tenure, not the deep wishes of the Texas legislature. My claim is that it will have little to no effect.

While I said that political interference would hurt the Texas publics, it could go the other way! Kicking out some subjects would  repel some faculty and potential facukty, of course, but it might well attract others.

As I also said upthread, that would have to be worked out by political competition in the long run.

Texas is not introducing this law to improve its competitive position in research...

[mleok]

I doubt Texas would interfere politically for that reason. But if it did, the science would not go down the tubes as there is competition.

Then you don't understand the first thing about the motivation for Texas to introduce this law, or the consequences it'll have for science in Texas. But, you're right science will not go down the tubes, other states will pick up the slack, but Texas science will. As it is other countries, like Singapore, have capitalized on the US's politically driven restrictions on stem cell research to poach some of our best scientists.

At this point, you're throwing out the equivalent of "thoughts and prayers" for Texan public universities than any real reasoned and substantiated arguments.

I've been addressing the specific issue in the title of this thread Texas Bill Nukes Tenure, not the deep wishes of the Texas legislature. My claim is that it will have little to no effect.

While I said that political interference would hurt the Texas publics, it could go the other way! Kicking out some subjects would  repel some faculty and potential facukty, of course, but it might well attract others.

As I also said upthread, that would have to be worked out by political competition in the long run.

More conservative leaning STEM faculty will improve Texas public universities? That must be why all the top STEM universities are bible thumpers... oh wait.

[dismalist]

./.

[dismalist]

I doubt Texas would interfere politically for that reason. But if it did, the science would not go down the tubes as there is competition.

Then you don't understand the first thing about the motivation for Texas to introduce this law, or the consequences it'll have for science in Texas. But, you're right science will not go down the tubes, other states will pick up the slack, but Texas science will. As it is other countries, like Singapore, have capitalized on the US's politically driven restrictions on stem cell research to poach some of our best scientists.

At this point, you're throwing out the equivalent of "thoughts and prayers" for Texan public universities than any real reasoned and substantiated arguments.

I've been addressing the specific issue in the title of this thread Texas Bill Nukes Tenure, not the deep wishes of the Texas legislature. My claim is that it will have little to no effect.

While I said that political interference would hurt the Texas publics, it could go the other way! Kicking out some subjects would  repel some faculty and potential facukty, of course, but it might well attract others.

As I also said upthread, that would have to be worked out by political competition in the long run.

More conservative leaning STEM faculty will improve Texas public universities? That must be why all the top STEM universities are bible thumpers... oh wait.

That's a non sequitur.

[mleok]

More conservative leaning STEM faculty will improve Texas public universities? That must be why all the top STEM universities are bible thumpers... oh wait.

That's a non sequitur.

There are already plenty of conservative universities, they are almost all mediocre at best, and none have had a demonstrated positive impact on STEM.

[dismalist]

More conservative leaning STEM faculty will improve Texas public universities? That must be why all the top STEM universities are bible thumpers... oh wait.

That's a non sequitur.

There are already plenty of conservative universities, they are almost all mediocre at best, and none have had a demonstrated positive impact on STEM.

There are also plenty of non-conservative universities that do not have a demonstrated positive impact on STEM. Moreover, conservative actual and potential faculty don't have to be currently working at conservative universities. All this applies to non-STEM as well.

[mleok]

More conservative leaning STEM faculty will improve Texas public universities? That must be why all the top STEM universities are bible thumpers... oh wait.

That's a non sequitur.

There are already plenty of conservative universities, they are almost all mediocre at best, and none have had a demonstrated positive impact on STEM.

There are also plenty of non-conservative universities that do not have a demonstrated positive impact on STEM. Moreover, conservative actual and potential faculty don't have to be currently working at conservative universities. All this applies to non-STEM as well.

Someone wake me up when you actually have anything to back up your assertions.

[dismalist]

More conservative leaning STEM faculty will improve Texas public universities? That must be why all the top STEM universities are bible thumpers... oh wait.

That's a non sequitur.

There are already plenty of conservative universities, they are almost all mediocre at best, and none have had a demonstrated positive impact on STEM.

There are also plenty of non-conservative universities that do not have a demonstrated positive impact on STEM. Moreover, conservative actual and potential faculty don't have to be currently working at conservative universities. All this applies to non-STEM as well.

Someone wake me up when you actually have anything to back up your assertions.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of my views in this empirical desert. I merely wish you to know that you are not alone.

I will continue with my well founded assertions.

[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.

[mleok]

I will continue with my well founded assertions.

Assuming facts not in evidence.