Plus, especially as non-tenured faculty make up more of the workforce, the smaller number of tenured faculty are increasingly devoting time to university service and administering their departments and colleges. Between that and teaching, there is often little time for research for most senior faculty.
Bringing this thread back thanks to a piece published in Slate:
And a bit more from the local paper:
So only six professors departed, at a school with over 2,000? That’s not very many. Rounded to the nearest percent, it’s zero percent.
I’d say my prediction that this was no big deal was correct.
How many of the 2000 are “high-profile tenured faculty”? In fact, how many of them are even tenured or tenure-track? The articles Algher cited were specifically about “superstars” and “top faculty.”
They lost 6 that they WANTED to retain. Not sure how much grant money they will take with them when they leave - but that is a big part of the cost of losing top faculty. Top faculty tend to pay for themselves.
They spent another $9 million to keep the ones who accepted the offers.
That is expensive and can have other impacts as the school ranking drops due to the loss of top faculty. Attacking tenure means that you have to replace the value of tenure with something else - in this case it required raises plus funding for research space, etc.
Of course, once you toss the money at the first group, then others will also be looking. Not every school has an opening each year, but for the foreseeable future (and now that everyone knows what the school will pay to retain), more faculty will be applying outside to either get a better academic environment or to force the school to offer them a nice bump.
Far from a cost and risk free scenario.
You’re forgetting the 40 who had to be persuaded to stay at a cost of $9 million, not to mention the demoralizing short-sighted message to the university that the government thinks less of its contribution to the state and the country, and how that could hinder attracting other bright minds in the future.
ETA: And what Algher said.
So without these 8 renowned denizens of the intellectual deep there won’t be anyone to assign grad students their teaching slots or write the grossly overpriced books that students are forced to buy.
It’s a dark day in history when a professor has to work in the same work environment as every other human being on the planet.
So, once again Scott Walker instituted a policy that caused the affected people to bitch and moan about how horrible it would be and that they would all lose their jobs.
And, once again those affected got huge raises plus increased research funding.
Hey, if you don’t mind having students pay more in tuition as the faculty demand cash as a replacement for tenure - go for it. We will see what the long-term impact is.
It is true that the employment contract for faculty has a different tone than that of the private sector. When the private sector pays 2x what a faculty position pays, there needs to be something to balance that out. It is simple economics - there is value to tenure, and if that value is taken faculty will expect something in return.
As for grad students teaching - in undergrad I had one class taught by a PhD candidate. In graduate school not a single one. Grad students do work as TAs (that is in exchange for their stipend), and some have gone so far as to unionize.
Very few faculty write textbooks. It is a pain, it does not pay well (the publisher gets most of the money) and it does not count as independent research.
Further, faculty do work in a competitive job environment. So when someone has their employment agreement change, they start looking for other work. Wisconsin made a threat, and it has cost them $9 million SO FAR. This is not over - more will be interviewing and leaving. When they leave, it will be a net loss to the school when they take their grant money with them.
Economics hypothesizes that when Wisconsin shifted the pay line, their ability to attract and retain new faculty shifted as well. We are now seeing the impact of that shift, and it is right in line with the hypothesis.
AND the university is seeing the first wave of people leaving. Scott Walker wanted to slap the university, and in exchange it cost the university money. Nicely done governor.
Well your wave appears to be a trickle and top performers are now higher paid. Great job indeed. Is that not what is desired?
They do work in the same environment as every other human being on the planet.
They had a job that came with a perq that is common in their particular employment sector. When that perq was taken away, the best and brightest among them sought employment elsewhere. Their employer took steps to retain them and was generally successful, but in some cases the employees went elsewhere.
What about that is different from most work environments?
You seem to think that people are opposing this because they think the professors are being treated unfairly, generally that is not the objection. The opposition to this is because it weakens the university by making it harder to keep talented employees and attract new talented employees.
This is exactly the same as the work environment for every other human being on the planet. If one employer is not offering something that all the other employers are, that employer is going to have problems with hiring and retention.
It is the beginning of the wave, and the only reason it was not larger was that the university (and therefore the state) had to pony up a ton of cash.
I am pointing out the idiocy of Governor Walker in thinking that his actions could be undertaken without repercussions, and the stupidity that resulted in higher costs to the university - not lower ones.
The faculty who got the additionals funds certainly came out ahead. The faculty who got better positions at other schools came out ahead. The State of Wisconsin gave up cash in exchange for taking on tenure - I am not convinced that they came out ahead.
Well it takes a while to come out in the wash. The wave you predict may happen but it may not. Just as the predicted wave of educator defections because of collective bargaining didn’t really materialize.
As for the state ponying up a ton of cash? The university was able to come up with this ton of cash despite major budget cuts from the state. The university threatened massive tuition increases but we will not know the extent of that for several more months when tuition bills arrive in the mail.
Speaking of collective bargaining. The first pay for performance reviews and raises will arrive in the next month or so. I am anxiously awaiting the results of that.
Well, that’s certainly a well-balanced view of academia. Nothing positive could come out of it, right?
Did a professor run over your puppy or something when you were a kid?
You mean the environment where a professor is rewarded with tenure after putting in years of the necessary work and satisfying all the criteria. Tenure doesn’t come in a cereal box. Profs get it the old-fashioned way, by earning it. Think of it as a million-dollar bonus that a CEO gets for a year’s work maybe even after failing, but without the million dollars and the failure, and with several more years of work.
Yes, once again a “hands off” Republican government has interfered with the citizenry, in this case an educational institution that operates by rules that it knows best, and Republicans blame the citizens for complaining about it. What is it about “intrusive government” that makes it invisible to Republicans when they’re guilty of it?
By what standard are they top performers? Remember, the great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. Different fields have different criteria for success. What makes your standard so special that it should be applied right across the board?
All that needs is a cite.
What value is that exactly? The ability to do whatever you want without consequences? That’s what tenure is. I would have loved to see the backside of a number of professors. They sucked. They’re welcome to hit the bricks and bring in those big bucks you think they’ll make. Nothing changes with the loss of tenure except a promise not to punish stupid.
Here’s a question. How many faculty that Madison WANTED to retain choose to leave in a typical year? My guess would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6. I wouldn’t be surprised if the number was larger than 6. At any big university, some faculty leave each year. Six profs leaving is not a sign of a major disaster. It’s not even a minor problem.
The Democrats and the media always claim that any minor budget cut will lead to an enormous catastrophe. The promised disaster never happens. So they take normal, predictable departures that are a part of academic life everywhere, and they try to convince us that this is a catastrophe. In reality, it’s not.
Wisconsin is not the only state where the universities are facing budget cuts:
Public universities are part of government. They are supposed to serve the taxpaying citizens. If those citizens become convinced that the universities are not spending money wisely or serving their needs well, those citizens can and will express it by electing politicians who cut their budgets. This is what’s happening in Wisconsin. And Illinois. And Missouri. And elsewhere.
So what academics should be doing is asking themselves some hard questions. What did we do that caused the voters to lose faith in us? What should we be doing differently? How do universities need to change to meet their students’ needs?
Instead, they’d rather stand around and yell “Scott Walker bad! Scott Walker bad! Scott Walker bad!”
You think more than six tenured professors quit the university every year?
Really?