Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate(chronicle.com)
chronicle.com
Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate
https://www.chronicle.com/article/ban-on-tenure-for-new-faculty-hires-passes-texas-senate
314 comments
I’m skeptical that tenure is good for students, I knew so many teachers that just didn’t much care for their work and probably would have been fired if not for tenure. I understand the arguments in favor of tenure, particularly when it comes to recruitment, but given the bloated pipeline into academia, I’m not sure they hold.
Not the law yet, but as Scott Aaronson (I'm positive along with others) has pointed out, this would make their universities vastly less attractive to various incoming faculty.
Whether that would be as impactful in STEM as in the humanities or human-interest areas like law remains to be seen.
Whether that would be as impactful in STEM as in the humanities or human-interest areas like law remains to be seen.
Honestly, it may not be a bad thing. Tenure was meant to protect the academic freedom, and pursuit of the long-term scientific research. Today, most academics chase money, grants, trends, citations and status.
It’s a job like any other, and doesn’t need protection, at cost to those outside the ivory tower (unless perhaps for a very small subset).
It’s a job like any other, and doesn’t need protection, at cost to those outside the ivory tower (unless perhaps for a very small subset).
So the Texas Senate just passed a bill that makes it more likely that Texas faculty hires will be from a smaller and no doubt lower quality pool of candidates?
Why take a job without the possibility of tenure vs anywhere else in the US that has the option available to you?
Why take a job without the possibility of tenure vs anywhere else in the US that has the option available to you?
> Public-college boards would be able to create “an alternate system of tiered employment status for faculty members” that’s not tenure, the legislation states. But that system would require faculty members to go through an annual performance evaluation.
That sounds closer to how most jobs work.
Honestly, I've never understood the purpose of tenure; it seems like an archaic tradition. If it's to give professors freedom to do research without fear of reprisal, it's not working, at least not optimally: there are plenty of ways to punish tenured researchers.
The professors I know personally have no expectation of ever getting tenure. Imagine that: Ph.D. in your field, work 30 years, never even seriously entertain the possibility of getting the brass ring. Something's broken there.
The best professor I had at university was in his sixties when I took his courses, and he never got tenure despite being really good at his job. The people who get tenure seem to be people who bring a lot of attention or a lot of money to the university. Both of those are only a professor's "job" if you look at universities as cynical money-making machines (a disenchantment I have slowly come around to).
I guess what I'm saying is, I have no problems with Texas throwing a grenade into this situation. I am somewhat skeptical of the likelihood of them replacing it with a better system in practice, though.
Still, some better solution must be found if we expect higher education to continue as an institution into the future. If this bill passes, I wish them good luck, and will be looking at this as an interesting experiment.
That sounds closer to how most jobs work.
Honestly, I've never understood the purpose of tenure; it seems like an archaic tradition. If it's to give professors freedom to do research without fear of reprisal, it's not working, at least not optimally: there are plenty of ways to punish tenured researchers.
The professors I know personally have no expectation of ever getting tenure. Imagine that: Ph.D. in your field, work 30 years, never even seriously entertain the possibility of getting the brass ring. Something's broken there.
The best professor I had at university was in his sixties when I took his courses, and he never got tenure despite being really good at his job. The people who get tenure seem to be people who bring a lot of attention or a lot of money to the university. Both of those are only a professor's "job" if you look at universities as cynical money-making machines (a disenchantment I have slowly come around to).
I guess what I'm saying is, I have no problems with Texas throwing a grenade into this situation. I am somewhat skeptical of the likelihood of them replacing it with a better system in practice, though.
Still, some better solution must be found if we expect higher education to continue as an institution into the future. If this bill passes, I wish them good luck, and will be looking at this as an interesting experiment.
I'd like to be open-minded and optimistic about this, but Texas is a noted enemy of education.
So as a Texan I'm on the fence here.
I wasn't directly involved (as a student and TA), but spent a fair while in academia, and was rather close personal friends with a number of adjunct professors, tenure-track profs, post-docs, and grad students. I was looking at staying in academics so I had many long discussions about the state of things (at least at the time, about a decade ago).
There was a lot of concern in the field about how tenure was an incentive and a solid goal to strive for, but it left much for the administration to abuse. Between the politics and bureaucracy and constant jockeying for tenure track, it made it hard to focus on the students. Since you had to "play the game" or get cut or tossed out, that forced non-tenure profs to spend time outside of teaching. Then you had the shitty profs that just wanted that tenure protection so they could avoid teaching and just do their own personal research. And since it was so easy to cut adjuncts, they had little to no bargaining position and were often given shitty pay. So I'm all for ditching Tenure or otherwise reworking that pile of garbage.
But on the other hand, I don't trust anything coming out of the TX lege right now. Especially if it's got Dan Patrick excited. They're trying their hardest to create an authoritarian theocracy using the same playbook as DeSantis, and this seems like another step in controlling education in Texas to paint the narrative they want.
I wasn't directly involved (as a student and TA), but spent a fair while in academia, and was rather close personal friends with a number of adjunct professors, tenure-track profs, post-docs, and grad students. I was looking at staying in academics so I had many long discussions about the state of things (at least at the time, about a decade ago).
There was a lot of concern in the field about how tenure was an incentive and a solid goal to strive for, but it left much for the administration to abuse. Between the politics and bureaucracy and constant jockeying for tenure track, it made it hard to focus on the students. Since you had to "play the game" or get cut or tossed out, that forced non-tenure profs to spend time outside of teaching. Then you had the shitty profs that just wanted that tenure protection so they could avoid teaching and just do their own personal research. And since it was so easy to cut adjuncts, they had little to no bargaining position and were often given shitty pay. So I'm all for ditching Tenure or otherwise reworking that pile of garbage.
But on the other hand, I don't trust anything coming out of the TX lege right now. Especially if it's got Dan Patrick excited. They're trying their hardest to create an authoritarian theocracy using the same playbook as DeSantis, and this seems like another step in controlling education in Texas to paint the narrative they want.
Texas has been rapid firing bills and actions that destroy local communities ability to self-govern as well as actions like these to try and spite what they view as the opposition. It's not going to end well for Texas (and is the reason why I left the state in the first place), but none of the ghouls in charge care because they'll be dead and / or get their payday before the problems come to roost. Much like Ken Paxton being a criminal that hasn't been put behind bars yet.
Clarifying a bad headline: it's not that tenure can't be offered (only) to new faculty. It's that henceforth nobody would be given tenure, even if they were already employees. Existing employees who are already tenured would be grandfathered.
And obviously only for public institutions.
And obviously only for public institutions.
Tenure is to Academia as Venture Capital is to Entreprenureship. You give resources (money, which buys time, office space, equipment, support staff...) to a bunch of promising individuals, hoping that some of them will do amazing things, but knowing most of them will not.
Going to be tough for UT, which regularly hires people who are among the best in the world, and was essentially at the Berkeley/UCLA/UMich level of public university. They will still be able to hire, of course, but they won't be able to get Nobel Prize-level people without offering tenure.
how many tenure track positions are hiring these days? I have the impression that they are pretty rare anyway.
This might possibly provide some benefits for adjunct faculty (at the expense of tenure lottery winners):
Demolishing the tenure class system may reduce the social stigma of being an adjunct vs. tenured faculty member.
A noted elsewhere, a mythical possibility of future tenure may become slightly less usable for luring faculty into accepting lower pay.
And since everyone is now an adjunct, adjunct salaries (which are usually terrible) may have to rise overall. Although it will probably still be much lower than traditional faculty salaries, as UT may attract more adjunct applicants.
Adjunct hiring might change from a per-term model (which is terrible) to a yearly model or even longer.
The result could possibly (hopefully?) be higher social status, higher pay, and better job security - for the lucky few adjuncts who manage to get faculty jobs at UT.
Demolishing the tenure class system may reduce the social stigma of being an adjunct vs. tenured faculty member.
A noted elsewhere, a mythical possibility of future tenure may become slightly less usable for luring faculty into accepting lower pay.
And since everyone is now an adjunct, adjunct salaries (which are usually terrible) may have to rise overall. Although it will probably still be much lower than traditional faculty salaries, as UT may attract more adjunct applicants.
Adjunct hiring might change from a per-term model (which is terrible) to a yearly model or even longer.
The result could possibly (hopefully?) be higher social status, higher pay, and better job security - for the lucky few adjuncts who manage to get faculty jobs at UT.
In terms of bills that are coming out of the Texas legislature these days, this is pretty mild.
As a TA at a certain public institution in Texas, the level of some students' incompetence by the time they reach their final year in undergraduate studies is shocking and saddening. And yet, almost no one fails, because there is pressure to pass everyone. One would literally have to do nothing in order to fail. Few professors have the time or energy to deal with these issues, so standards get lower and more students pass without knowing their subject. The only thing protecting professors from retaliation (not acquiescing to pressure from administrators / deans to pass students) is tenure. We can see clearly what will be the effect of this legislation.
This is the republicans punishing groups of people they don't like.
This is a larger blow to smaller universities like UTSA and UTD that finally have budding research programs. I really wish the Texas government would stay out of people's lives. This is just another bill in the long line of bills this year intended to kill "wokeness". Our government doesn't give a single care about education. As long as they think they can get conforming, uninformed youth out of something, they'll do anything.
Some are arguing that the tenure system is broken. Maybe. If this change was done in good faith to make the system stronger, it is worth considering. But there is little evidence that that is what is going on. Conservatives have been beating the drum for decades that colleges brainwash their kids into being liberals, and so they want control to fire any academic that doesn't confirm to their views.
edit: I'm speaking as a 19 year resident of Austin, Texas who has watched countless other power grabs, including Governor Perry installing biblical literalists to oversee Texas school books that deny evolution and rewriting history -- too much Jefferson and not a mention of Phyllis Schlafley (not joking). The same legislature has pushed a law requiring every K-12 schoolroom to display the Ten Commandments.
edit: I'm speaking as a 19 year resident of Austin, Texas who has watched countless other power grabs, including Governor Perry installing biblical literalists to oversee Texas school books that deny evolution and rewriting history -- too much Jefferson and not a mention of Phyllis Schlafley (not joking). The same legislature has pushed a law requiring every K-12 schoolroom to display the Ten Commandments.
https://archive.ph/ECOij - the page wasn't loading for me for some reason.
[deleted]
If there are trying to reduce entitlement spending, maybe they should start with their own state pension system. Maybe start with state representatives and move from a guarantee benefits system to a 401k or similar system where benefits aren’t guaranteed.
I think at SOME institutions this is needed. Professors who have stopped teaching and just waiting for retirement weigh down universities. Students learn from professors who have a vested interest in their learning. What incentivizes tenured profs?
Getting stronger academics in Texas universities has been an uphill battle for quite awhile. I don't think this will make things any better, and I struggle to see any genuine argument for why this isn't the politically-motivated intent.
in the humanities there is a glut of excellent scholars who would be happy to have a non-tenured professorship which is nevertheless a real job with decent pay, benefits, and working conditions.
in applied technical fields it will be really hard to hire people as tenure and academic freedom are the only reason people deal with the BS of academia over industry.
so this will probably have the opposite effect of what the legislature wants, the pool of left-leaning humanities professors won’t change much, while STEM will be hugely weakened.
in applied technical fields it will be really hard to hire people as tenure and academic freedom are the only reason people deal with the BS of academia over industry.
so this will probably have the opposite effect of what the legislature wants, the pool of left-leaning humanities professors won’t change much, while STEM will be hugely weakened.
While the intentions of this change are admittedly malicious, I support the move away from the traditional concept of tenure.
Tenure is about exploiting researchers through their 20s as PhDs/post-docs and 30s as assistant-professors, with tenure being a possibility at 40. In the best case scenario, these researchers hit 40, and enjoy what is really an early retirement. Reality is, many will find that nothing is good enough to get tenure at an R1 institute.
With the industry moving as fast as it is, professors become obsolete rather quickly. Just look at the huge number of new professors in crypto and NLP, whose entire labs have become obsolete overnight. Honestly, the over-production of PhDs is a big problem today. Hopefully these changes will be the much-needed slap in the face needed for a whole generation of new PhDs to look elsewhere for employment. Tenure is a winner take all system, where the small number who succeed, do it at the expense of the far-too-late disillusionment of the majority.
There are broadly 2 different types of academics. The economically productive ones and the money sinks. The money sink academics (Non-stem, non-business) are doomed to a life in academia, irrespective of tenure. They aren't employable in their profession elsewhere, effectively captives of the system. The economically productive ones will be given great 'deals' by the university anyway. These people are important, and universities will raise wages, give work-life balance deals, allow them to have their own practice and give them long contracts. Tenure is a flaky lever used liberally today, but forcing universities into offering more concrete deals is probably better for the employees overall. College basketball doesn't need to offer tenure to $$hire$$ the very best coaches .
Tenure's main benefits were that professors were unfireable. In 2023, we see professors being practically bullied into submission by students. We see professors lose creative control over their departments with administrative takeover. Professors are slaves to their funding sources, in a manner that is no different than working in industry. The only appeal of tenure is thus idea of 'early academic retirement'. But that too is a lie, because the system will have squeezed every bit out of you. You might as well be a 65-yr-old in a 40 yr old's body by the time you get tenure.
Tenure won't just go away. It will be replaced by more flexible deals. I for one, am looking forward to a change in academia, that adjusts to the death of honor based systems and the realities of a completely messed up supply-demand equation between universities and candidates.
Tenure is about exploiting researchers through their 20s as PhDs/post-docs and 30s as assistant-professors, with tenure being a possibility at 40. In the best case scenario, these researchers hit 40, and enjoy what is really an early retirement. Reality is, many will find that nothing is good enough to get tenure at an R1 institute.
With the industry moving as fast as it is, professors become obsolete rather quickly. Just look at the huge number of new professors in crypto and NLP, whose entire labs have become obsolete overnight. Honestly, the over-production of PhDs is a big problem today. Hopefully these changes will be the much-needed slap in the face needed for a whole generation of new PhDs to look elsewhere for employment. Tenure is a winner take all system, where the small number who succeed, do it at the expense of the far-too-late disillusionment of the majority.
There are broadly 2 different types of academics. The economically productive ones and the money sinks. The money sink academics (Non-stem, non-business) are doomed to a life in academia, irrespective of tenure. They aren't employable in their profession elsewhere, effectively captives of the system. The economically productive ones will be given great 'deals' by the university anyway. These people are important, and universities will raise wages, give work-life balance deals, allow them to have their own practice and give them long contracts. Tenure is a flaky lever used liberally today, but forcing universities into offering more concrete deals is probably better for the employees overall. College basketball doesn't need to offer tenure to $$hire$$ the very best coaches .
Tenure's main benefits were that professors were unfireable. In 2023, we see professors being practically bullied into submission by students. We see professors lose creative control over their departments with administrative takeover. Professors are slaves to their funding sources, in a manner that is no different than working in industry. The only appeal of tenure is thus idea of 'early academic retirement'. But that too is a lie, because the system will have squeezed every bit out of you. You might as well be a 65-yr-old in a 40 yr old's body by the time you get tenure.
Tenure won't just go away. It will be replaced by more flexible deals. I for one, am looking forward to a change in academia, that adjusts to the death of honor based systems and the realities of a completely messed up supply-demand equation between universities and candidates.
tenure was supposed to allow professors to be able to speak their mind without fear of being fired
but apparently modern bureaucracy has evolved to get around this
but apparently modern bureaucracy has evolved to get around this
Hey, when you've got a political base to whip up and make crazy, consequences don't matter...
> […] it would be the end of UT Austin and Texas A&M as leading research universities. More precisely, it would be the immediate end of our ability to recruit competitively, and the slightly slower end of our competitiveness period, as faculty with options moved elsewhere. This is so because of the economics of faculty hiring. Particularly in STEM fields like computer science, those who become professors typically forgo vastly higher salaries in industry, not to mention equity in startup companies and so on.
https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7243