Is tenure worth saving?

I have never liked the idea of a "position for life" whether it be for a professorship or a judge for that matter. I understand there is a powerful argument to be made for retaining tenor but it should be modified to either a limited period of time, say 5 years, or tenure with no assurance of continued salary support.

I think most people like the ideal stated in option 2. A University as a place for learning and knowledge. And tenure would belong there. The problem is money. Universities are very expensive. States and the Federal gov't don't want to spend the money. Students don't want to pay the price through higher tuition and faculty certainly don't want to "spend" the money by teaching more classes (that is fewer faculty) or taking pay cuts for what they currently teach. Of course that also goes for the large number of administrators too.

I think the flavor of this interview shows that tenure is now more about job security than it is about protecting the researchers willingness to express controversial findings. That really weakens the argument for tenure and leaves no reason why faculty should not have contracts for a specified length of time.

Whatever the cause, the quality of education today is marginal compared to say 30+ years ago. One clearly has to look at the larger picture as to "why" this is the case. I am neither for or against tenure, and have no political interest for either side. With the tenure ratios higher in years past, it gives cause to reflect that tenured faculty in especially the core curriculum areas would lead to a sense of personal ownership and responsibility for producing a quality "product" i.e., "educating."\n\nMy own personal undergraduate education 30+ years ago was "world class" compared to what I see in today's very transient market of educators and institutions. In addition, I have seen a "watering down" of material presented. This usually is related to cutting corners, cost efficiency, and so forth. Graduates today have been cheated out of a well rounded education. A crime, in my opinion, for what students are paying these days for ?higher education.

Right now, I am a researcher in Industry and as a post doctoral fellow, I used to teach physics. The complaint I used to get from all the students is that the tenured faculty never bothered to teach or rather put efforts in teaching because they were tenured and had no one to question them. Just like politicians have to win their way into a senate/congress, college/university faculty should be made to justify the reason for them being there. They just have too much power and they better earn it every time and should be shown the door when they do not meet their obligations and I fear many of the tenured faculty cannot justify for the money they earn and the clout they have.

You have to consider the source of this interview. Dr. Clawson is a sociology professor at a university that is not primarily driven by research. The primary reason for tenure at the best research universities in the country (for example Harvard, MIT, Cal Tech, Duke UCs, etc.) is to allow a researcher to have the freedom to pursue bold and exciting new research initiatives that would be to risky for an untenured professor to pursue. This type of high-stake research usually results in the most significant and advancing discoveries, but also usually comes with the greatest chance of failure. Preserving tenure for this reason is still extremely valid.

Two (related) points. First, an additional factor which makes tenure increasingly less attractive for academic institutions is the disappearance of an employment "end-point" i.e. mandatory retirement. Secondly, as Dan Clawson describes, there is already a two tier system in place in many universities, with teaching assistants (TAs) and contract faculty taking up the slack in teaching. There is significant inequality between the two tiers, and the natives are already getting restless (e.g. there have been recent strikes by TAs at York University, Ontario, Canada about poor pay and conditions). If tenure (for life) is to be phased out, there needs to be a more stable alternative to such short-term contract employment. It is not good for university educators to have less job security than high school teachers! A middle ground is required where faculty can have some relatively long term guarantee of "academic freedom". Perhaps 10 year blocks, or up to 60 years of age with reasonable renewal opportunities thereafter.

I too do not believe in a ?job for life?, but I do support tenure. I think we need to look at what tenure provides. \n\n1) As stated it allows for a faculty to take a very controversial stand on an issue without worrying about his paycheck (food, healthcare, mortgage... you see what I am saying), which allows for "truth to be spoken to power". It is a great check in our information society.\n\n2) Tenure allows for a research faculty member (which most faculty with tenure are) to take greater risks and work on more interesting areas. If you had to "prove" yourself to the university frequently, how would time dedicated to research, which can result in no finished product for years, look to administrators that may only care about the bottom line?\n\nConsequently, the tenure system is part of what has made universities centers of learning and knowledge. Could Universities continue to be centers of learning and knowledge without tenure, most likely, but what is the model that is proposed to protect the two points listed above? If the model is nothing more than a straw man argument, can an institution continue to be a center of learning and knowledge? Harvard could off of reputation alone, but what about the "average" University?\n\n\n

If tenureship truly serves the intended purpose of scholarly progress by the tenured professors, then it's well worth keeping. However, the question arises as to just how much the tenured professors really contribute towards advancing the knowledge of their fields. If tenureship is just the ultimate goal to attain by the college professors for their life-time job security, as it seems to have become in general practice, instead, then it must be modified or, even, abolished. Of all the thousands of tenured professors in the U.S., alone, how many of them are really productive researchers who contribute significantly and nonredundantly towards advancing the knowledge in their chosen fields? How many of them even make enough accomplishments or contributions earlier in their careers to be awarded their tenureships? The answer, sadly, is very few of them do so. The majority rest just drain the already dwindled college budgets and take away the limited office or lab spaces that could much better be utilized by their younger and more productive, non-tenured colleagues. In fact, many of the tenured professors neither contribute towards research nor teaching.

As a young researcher, I spend more and more of my time thinking on why I got into academia in the first place, and sometimes wishes there was a real alternative so I could get out. The problem is that I am now over 30, I haven't had the means (or the 'geographic security') to invest in a house or any of the other things that people I went to school with did 10-15 years ago. As a consequence I am highly educated, but have a very low financial status. This is a cause for stress. At the same time, I will be working on short time contracts for a long while yet, longer even if the administrators get their way. If there is no light at the end of the tunnel, all the smart people will disappear from academia and the universities will end up being schools. This is extremely worrying. At the same time, I also blame the fact that more and more educations are becoming university degrees. Universities should be for the people who are interested in pursuing knowledge for the sake of knowledge. That is where the truly life altering discoveries are made. Then companies can pick up from the new knowledge and create products. At the moment, the balance is way off.\nAt the same time, I think that it is arrogant to say to a lot of people that their educations are not good enough, but now we are making it a university degree (although you cannot use it to gain access to further research positions). Universities are centres of knowledge, and should stay like that, but for that to happen we need to make sure that researches do not become second class citizens with low job security, long educations, high debts and, lets be honest, very low wages.

Tenure is under the pressure of our current time. The pressure being that of the financial bottom line which the administration department is responsible to address. The professionals there have to keep the book balance, the same book that ensures the tenured are paid.\n\nIf tenure is to be valued for what is being claimed through the various comments for this article, then society through their Government need to ack accordingly to empower the administrative department with the right financial support to achieve this goal.\n\nHowever, given how financial makers derailed the system, the whole concept of capitalism needs to be reformed. How the economy gets re-booted will spindle down to JOBS, Healthcare reform and somehow to tenure as education is key to U.S. credibility as super-power.\n\nSo, yes, tenure is worth saving as the pilar of education depends on it regardless of the few tenured only there for security. Nonetheless making finance available to the administrators is the burden of the financial makers. Get it right with capitalism will have far reaching effect benefiting among many the tenure-system.