Texas Bill Nukes Tenure

[dismalist]

Perhaps some of those students would rather go to Texas publics than work in industry!

The thing you seem to have a hard time getting is few if any faculty will be more attracted to Texas because of the lack of tenure, but they might accept a position there in spite of it if they have no better options, or if Texas increases their salaries to compensate for the lack of tenure. One of my former postdocs is working at one of the Texas publics, but he already has tenure, we'll see if he starts revisiting the job market in the event this bill passes. I have a former student whose first job was at Florida Tech, which originally did not offer tenure, but they started offering tenure because they felt it would be beneficial for their recruitment efforts. With the exception of you, even the most ardent opponents of tenure have the better sense not to argue that the removal of tenure will improve the competitiveness of their faculty recruitment efforts.

but they might accept a position there in spite of it if they have no better options, or if Texas increases their salaries to compensate for the lack of tenure.

So, we agree!

My argument is that any effect will be small, none in the humanities and social sciences, on account of the reserve army of adjuncts.  There is a possible effect in STEM leading to higher salaries or shrinkage.

But even on the STEM side, I'm having doubts. One thing that is not discussed is the substance of the political competition between states. So, Texas abolishes tenure. Bad, for Texas, it might seem. But if other states allow only woke science you might get even non-conservatives migrating to Texas, and Texas benefits as a location for undertaking research.

I don't  know how big such an effect might be, but it will be positive.

[MarathonRunner]

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.

100%. This is what I see in my field.

[Wahoo Redux]

What proportion of humanties professors are in a position to take up consulting positions? Or this this just a discussion about engineering?

There is very little "consulting" for English-types.

However, a number of my grad school cohort, some who did not finish the doctorate, have other well-paying corporate jobs doing PR or the like.  Some work as editors / copywriters.  I understand they are paid fairly well.

One of my wife's colleagues is tenured Spanish professor.  When the major was cut, she found a job almost immediately working for a local nonprofit doing some sort of outreach----her Spanish fluency may have played a part.  She actually got the job before she finished out this term and "retired."

Another fella we know with a doctorate in Victorian literature dropped out of teaching and worked for a well known professional symphony orchestra doing public relations, grant writing, schmoozing with rich and famous people and the like.  He is very proud of his salary there (which would be hard to replicate with a less-famous orchestra, I assume).

I've met people with English degrees of various sorts who have earned a living as technical writers for large businesses or as freelance workers. I'm not sure how people break into that as mid-career academics though.

Facebook has The Professor is Out to help transitioning academics.  I know a lot of people utilize it. 

There are also a Freelancers Website, as a for instance.  There is also simply applying. 

I talked to an editor who works for a "service" that curates online materials.  There were some problems with the company, and I declined their work.  In that case I simply made contact.

Applying outside of academia is just like applying for any job these days-----Monster.com, Yahoo jobs, etc.

[ciao_yall]

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.

100%. This is what I see in my field.

Plus... you have to work hard to get tenure. And it takes a while. So someone who does what it takes to get tenure has also shown themselves as being the type of person who will work hard because they are committed to the institution and their role.

There are cases of profs who have "retired in place" but that happens in the private sector, too.

[ciao_yall]

My stepmother's first husband had his PhD in Philosophy and was a well-renowned car mechanic in Los Angeles. The Beverly Hills crowd loved coming to him because they had such great conversations.

He would bring home really fancy cars and take my stepmother out to dinner in them, and of course the valets would fawn all over him.

As she told me "Don't fall for a man because he has a nice car. He could be the owner's mechanic." True dat.

[Wahoo Redux]

woke science

What is that?

[mleok]

But even on the STEM side, I'm having doubts. One thing that is not discussed is the substance of the political competition between states. So, Texas abolishes tenure. Bad, for Texas, it might seem. But if other states allow only woke science you might get even non-conservatives migrating to Texas, and Texas benefits as a location for undertaking research.

I don't  know how big such an effect might be, but it will be positive.

I don't know what kind of woke science you're talking about, you see, that's the whole point of tenure, so that political whims do not affect your ability to pursue whatever research direction you choose. Not sure what kind of conservative science you think Texas is going to benefit from because of the elimination of tenure either. In any case, through the course of this thread, you've backpeddled dramatically from the position that the elimination of tenure will be a positive for Texas to it being at most a small negative.

[mleok]

woke science

What is that?

A figment of dismalist's overactive imagination. In fact, as the case of Michael Behe at Lehigh demonstrates, tenure protects the right of conservative faculty to sprout nonsense.

[dismalist]

In any case, through the course of this thread, you've backpeddled dramatically from the position that the elimination of tenure will be a positive for Texas to it being at most a small negative.

I've said the effect of removing tenure on Texas publics will be small, none in the fields where there are reserve armies of adjuncts. I also said STEM might have ot pay more or shrink.

Now, my new point is that  in STEM it could be good if there are enough refugees from woke science. I don't know if the magnitude is sufficiently high.

If you don't know what woke science  is, you clearly needn't worry about it.

Perhaps more generally, the market for potential academics is bigger than you imagine. There is competition everywhere.

[Wahoo Redux]

If you don't know what woke science  is, you clearly needn't worry about it.

No, I am quite worried.

Specifically, what scientific advancements are woke?  I think we all need to know this.  Does DeSantis know?

[downer]

Partly, it is a matter of terminology. Think of the claims of some scientists that global climate change is not caused by humans. Is that science or is it just bad science, not really science at all? In the 1950s, there were some doctors who apparently said that cigarettes are healthy. Was that science? There are neo-creationist "scientists" who say the evidence points to God creating the universe in 7 days. All this is probably best characterized as not science, but "science" in quotation marks.

The current debate over "woke science" is mostly about claims about sex and gender. In particular, there's a claim that biological sex is socially constucted -- Judith Butler, a philosopher, is often cited. People who call the claims of some scientists "woke" don't think it is really science at all. It is just "science."

Part of the problem of decipering the debate is to work out what is actually being asserted by each side. The critics of "woke science" claim that "woke scientists" think biology should stop using the words "female" and "male" for example. Generally, these alarmist claims are greatly exaggerated.

There are more extreme positions. For example. I don't think Butler herself would see any legitimate distinction between science and "science."

[mleok]

The current debate over "woke science" is mostly about claims about sex and gender. In particular, there's a claim that biological sex is socially constucted -- Judith Butler, a philosopher, is often cited. People who call the claims of some scientists "woke" don't think it is really science at all. It is just "science."

The last time I checked, philosophy isn't a science.

[Wahoo Redux]

Partly, it is a matter of terminology. Think of the claims of some scientists that global climate change is not caused by humans. Is that science or is it just bad science, not really science at all?

When you have business professors and electrical engineers touting their Ph.D.s and taking a stance on climate science, you do not have science.

Forgive me, Kay, but creationism is not science.

The current debate over "woke science" is mostly about claims about sex and gender. In particular, there's a claim that biological sex is socially constucted -- Judith Butler, a philosopher, is often cited. People who call the claims of some scientists "woke" don't think it is really science at all. It is just "science."

"Performativity" is not science.  And in any event, its meaning is far more complicated than you seem to realize.

Be smarter than the propaganda, Big-D.

[marshwiggle]

Partly, it is a matter of terminology. Think of the claims of some scientists that global climate change is not caused by humans. Is that science or is it just bad science, not really science at all? In the 1950s, there were some doctors who apparently said that cigarettes are healthy. Was that science? There are neo-creationist "scientists" who say the evidence points to God creating the universe in 7 days. All this is probably best characterized as not science, but "science" in quotation marks.

The current debate over "woke science" is mostly about claims about sex and gender. In particular, there's a claim that biological sex is socially constucted -- Judith Butler, a philosopher, is often cited. People who call the claims of some scientists "woke" don't think it is really science at all. It is just "science."

Part of the problem of decipering the debate is to work out what is actually being asserted by each side. The critics of "woke science" claim that "woke scientists" think biology should stop using the words "female" and "male" for example. Generally, these alarmist claims are greatly exaggerated.

There are more extreme positions. For example. I don't think Butler herself would see any legitimate distinction between science and "science."

And unfortunately, politicians (and often even the media) often don't make much distinction between science and "science".

[Wahoo Redux]

Partly, it is a matter of terminology. Think of the claims of some scientists that global climate change is not caused by humans. Is that science or is it just bad science, not really science at all? In the 1950s, there were some doctors who apparently said that cigarettes are healthy. Was that science? There are neo-creationist "scientists" who say the evidence points to God creating the universe in 7 days. All this is probably best characterized as not science, but "science" in quotation marks.

The current debate over "woke science" is mostly about claims about sex and gender. In particular, there's a claim that biological sex is socially constucted -- Judith Butler, a philosopher, is often cited. People who call the claims of some scientists "woke" don't think it is really science at all. It is just "science."

Part of the problem of decipering the debate is to work out what is actually being asserted by each side. The critics of "woke science" claim that "woke scientists" think biology should stop using the words "female" and "male" for example. Generally, these alarmist claims are greatly exaggerated.

There are more extreme positions. For example. I don't think Butler herself would see any legitimate distinction between science and "science."

And unfortunately, politicians (and often even the media) often don't make much distinction between science and "science".

Do you know what Butler actually says, Marshy?

Big-D got it absolutely wrong. And it is not clear that downer understands her either.