“The crisis of university underfunding”, riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
What’s the total budget for America’s universities now? How does that compare to 25, 50, or 100 years ago?
America’s universities face a crisis of overspending, not a crisis of underfunding.
Per student?
Per Researcher?
Public or Private?
Your own link doesn’t have an answer - it just talks about the problem of tuition inflation. Of course, that is the inflation of a number that a significant number of students do not pay. Stanford is free if your family makes less than $125k, for example.
The University of California used to be supported by the state, not anymore. Now they are more restricted by the state. They must get approval to raise tuition, while still being limited in how much they get from the taxpayers.
Tuition is only 13% of the UC budget, the state provides 11%, grants cover 18%. That 18% is again why the risk of losing a rock star can hit so hard.
Tenure is part of the complete pay package, and helps offset other challenges. If you eliminate tenure, you will need to make up for it somehow. Richard Mckenzie, a professor of economics had this to say:
http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/tomprof/posting.php?ID=106
and
Not to derail but:
No one gets a pension after 18 years in the military. Not sure what you mean by the term “full pension.” I’m guessing you don’t either.
After 20 years, the Enlisted guy you reference gets about $23,400 a year before taxes. Nothing to throw out the window, but he’s not living high on the hog either. Can’t retire off that (using the normal definition of the term which is why many now use the term “transitioning”) but he is 20 years behind most of his peers in that second career you mentioned.
My second guess would be that you’d expect a better 5 minute research effort from a freshman on a topic that you’re passionate about. Could be wrong.
Your statement makes no logical sense. Unions are a legal entity, created by government, so they do obviously express the will of the people . Unions are there to serve the workers, the workers vote to have a union, and the workers also have input into what actions are taken by a union.
Unions aren’t created by government; they are created by workers. They express the will of their members and not of the public at large. Government embodies the will of all its citizens, which is a much larger group and therefore much more entitled to claim to express the will of the people.
When Abraham Lincoln spoke of government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, he wasn’t talking about unions.
Regards,
Shodan
You mean, have we heard about a story that perfectly demonstrates the value of the tenure system in defending professors’ academic freedom? Yes. Yes we have.
Didn’t think that one through, did you?
Your point isn’t a good one here as unions are given specific protection by the government. Following your line of reasoning here their existence also represents the will of the public.
Some interesting points of view here. It seems that universities have done a very poor job communicating the benefits of tenure if it has gotten to the point that state officials are targeting its removal.
Given that students and associate professors directly feel the burden of bad-actors that are tenured and never get to see the the benefits, seems like universities should have been more proactive in marketing the societal benefits of tenure. They didn’t and now they are playing defense when people are riled up over perceived (and sometimes actual) grievances with the system.
And yes, the university is an employer and can set whatever pay system they want and the market will bear, but the market includes a lot of influential actors besides students and poor associate professors.
Overall I’d say universities are in a poor spot and need to get their marketing depts communicating the value add of rising tuition and tenure (mentioning both only because they tend to get brought up together). That may also mean that if their facts don’t bear out their beliefs, universities may have to change their perspectives on tenure.
We’re talking about state universities. The Walker plan has no effect on private institutions.
Lets start by stating that we are talking about research universities with graduate programs. That differentiation is the first ignorance in the public. You average community college professor is NOT doing independent research, is NOT supervising graduate students, and is judged on their teaching alone.
University faculty are judged on their research productivity, their grant money, their service, supervision of graduate students, and their teaching. Research productivity is the number 1, and really the only heavily judged part of their life.
This leads to the problem of the public not understanding the research, and then not being able to value it. THIS is where the academy needs to up its game. The marketing department needs to help explain the value of the independent research that is conducted. I have said that each department needs a faculty whisperer who can take the faculty work and explain it to the public.
BTW - tenure track titles:
However, in a conflict between state government, as represented by Walker and the WI legislature, and unions, the state has much the better claim to representing “the people” and their will. Because a good many more people voted for Walker than belong to teacher’s unions.
Non-union members have little opportunity to affect how the unions act. Voters have much more to affect what Walker does.
They could, for instance, try a recall election. I think we all remember how that turned out.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s interesting what different colored lenses you and I have.
I don’t read Kipnis’ story as a congratulatory ode to the tenure system – (“Thank goodness the tenure system saved her from a Kafkaesque trial!”) Instead, I read it as a condemnation of the philosophies that allow a student to believe, apparently genuinely, that a professor’s tweet saying It’s a problem that “trauma” is now deployed re any bad experience. And dating is not the same as rape! can somehow form the basis of a Title IX complaint.
The problem, in other words, is not the elimination of tenure and the loss of protections against insane complaining. The problem is the insanity that permeates the Title IX complaint system.
If your view were the right one, we’d seemingly be accepting of such procedures when used against a mere instructor.
An associate professor may not necessarily replace a full professor, even if said associate has completed all the advanced academic degrees appropriate to the position. Post doc ergo propter hoc.
Focusing the whole issue on tenure is wrong. This is about academic freedom and Walker and many conservatives want to eliminate that.
Face it, conservatives fear and hate higher education because they don’t like that professors tend to be liberal. They would be perfectly fine with tenure if professors were mainly conservative. So this isn’t specifically about tenure, tenure is just another type of worker protection. Eliminate that and you can more easily eliminate teachers who disagree with you
Kipnis’ story shows that academic freedom is threatened by liberals.
Academic freedom can be threatened from either side, be it a hunt for Marxists or a hunt for Republicans.
Huh?
Degrees won’t get you a ladder faculty position. You need a line of research to go with it. That will get you Assistant status.
Once you are an Assistant, you move up to Full - but you don’t do that by replacing someone. That replacement (or growth) was set when you were hired. There is no need for turnover at the “top” for someone to move up, just for someone to get a position.
It can be, sure. I think you’d agree that historically it’s generally not liberals doing the threatening. Daniel Pipes is probably not voting Democratic.
But that’s why we have the tenure system: to protect professors from whoever is threatening academic freedom today.
If we need tenure to save us from the students in Kipnis’ story then we have already lost.
Think of professors like judges. In many areas, judges are appointed for life and therefore do not need to cater to the whims of political fads. On one hand, this makes them freer to make unpopular decisions and insulates them against public outcries like a typical elected official would. On the other hand, if you have a bad one, its harder to get rid of them since they don’t have to listen to any amount of protesting.
Tenure doesn’t mean its impossible to get rid of teachers, it offers them a protection in case they teach something against the social grain. That’s more important than weeding out the bad ones. I’m against Walker doing it because its a nakedly political power grab to fire teachers who don’t agree with him. I see and understand how bad teachers can be detrimental but I find it more important to let academic freedom flourish.
Also liberals tend to be right on issues and more fairly balanced, and follow actual science, so I’m all for protecting that 