Aww Crap - do we gotta do the whole tenure-bashing thing again? Really? Coz I get a little tired of the whole "tenure = useless" bit. It's been done.
I understand that that tenure is bound to create some resentment. More to the point I understand that it's in many people's interests to stoke that resentment. It's in the interests of adminflakes and politicos because if they can convince us that job security creates laziness, then they are justified in using ever more short-term contracts. Yeah, that's the solution - that ought keep those silly proffies in line and get some work out of the lazy bastards.
I think you'll see the value of tenure when and if you get it. When I was a wretched youngish postdoc, suffering the chronic anxiety of boucing from job to job and rarely being able to see more than a year into the future, I used to argue about tenure with a scientifically productive, research-active, full professor with tenure. I used to point out that tenure too often shields deadwood, unlike him, and that it's too much of an all-or-nothing deal.
He admitted my second point: tenure is too much of an all-or-nothing deal, and the process of getting tenure takes far too long, which can be real hell on family life. Still, he also argued that tenure is necessary for him to do his job effectively.
He's at the U. of Texas, see, and often gets complaints on his anonymous student evaluations from students who don't want to hear about evolution, which he rather has to teach about, since he's a science proffie. This is important, since as you may know, UTexas gets its endowment from the sale of metamorphosed ancient life, namely, oil. Finding oil depends on a knowledge of fossils. By that, I mean an honest knowledge of fossils: a knowledge of fossils that presupposes that Earth is less than 10,000 years old, the way too many of his students were wanting, will not work.
Now that I have tenure, I'm glad that he won that argument. Did you know that tenure was greatly expanded in the U.S. shortly after the McCarthy hearings in the '50s, in part to shield proffies from being fired for their political views? I hope I never need to use that, but these days, I'm not so sure.
It's also a complete myth that tenure is "a job for life." Proffies are subject to layoff if their whole departments are shut down, due to dire economic straits, all too common these days. Proffies can also be fired for incompetence, such as when they refuse to learn to use e-mail, or for moral turpitude. Punching one's colleagues, showing up to class drunk or even chronically late or unprepared, smoking a J in one's office, or dating one's students can achieve that handily---or at least should, if the department Chair has any gumption.
Here's what Ed Nather has to say about tenure, in "Advice to the Young Astronomer":
Tenure: Seek it. Job security is comforting, but the main point about tenure is that you get to do what you want in the way of research. You will probably have to pay for it yourself - you won't get departmental funds after that business with the committee assignments - but you can find grant funds if you know what you want to do and can describe it well. You don't have to follow the "mainstream" of current astronomical research, and you shouldn't. If your primary goal is to learn how the universe really works, and not just to get your name in the newspaper, look where others are not exploring. Nature is so rich you are unlikely to look carefully at anything without learning something new, particularly in unexplored territory. New instruments are wonderful here. If you follow current fads in astronomy you'll just be wasting your time - the fad-followers will publish what they find and you can read about it, for free. If you have to rush to publish something, quick before you get scooped, you are doing the wrong research. Stop it, and do something nobody thinks is interesting. Trust me: it will be.
I love it.
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one that both desires and despises tenure in equal measure?
No.
DeleteTenure is a feature of the system, with advantages and failings. Where people are involved, lots of failings.
Aww Crap - do we gotta do the whole tenure-bashing thing again? Really? Coz I get a little tired of the whole "tenure = useless" bit. It's been done.
ReplyDeleteI understand that that tenure is bound to create some resentment. More to the point I understand that it's in many people's interests to stoke that resentment. It's in the interests of adminflakes and politicos because if they can convince us that job security creates laziness, then they are justified in using ever more short-term contracts. Yeah, that's the solution - that ought keep those silly proffies in line and get some work out of the lazy bastards.
I think you'll see the value of tenure when and if you get it. When I was a wretched youngish postdoc, suffering the chronic anxiety of boucing from job to job and rarely being able to see more than a year into the future, I used to argue about tenure with a scientifically productive, research-active, full professor with tenure. I used to point out that tenure too often shields deadwood, unlike him, and that it's too much of an all-or-nothing deal.
ReplyDeleteHe admitted my second point: tenure is too much of an all-or-nothing deal, and the process of getting tenure takes far too long, which can be real hell on family life. Still, he also argued that tenure is necessary for him to do his job effectively.
He's at the U. of Texas, see, and often gets complaints on his anonymous student evaluations from students who don't want to hear about evolution, which he rather has to teach about, since he's a science proffie. This is important, since as you may know, UTexas gets its endowment from the sale of metamorphosed ancient life, namely, oil. Finding oil depends on a knowledge of fossils. By that, I mean an honest knowledge of fossils: a knowledge of fossils that presupposes that Earth is less than 10,000 years old, the way too many of his students were wanting, will not work.
Now that I have tenure, I'm glad that he won that argument. Did you know that tenure was greatly expanded in the U.S. shortly after the McCarthy hearings in the '50s, in part to shield proffies from being fired for their political views? I hope I never need to use that, but these days, I'm not so sure.
It's also a complete myth that tenure is "a job for life." Proffies are subject to layoff if their whole departments are shut down, due to dire economic straits, all too common these days. Proffies can also be fired for incompetence, such as when they refuse to learn to use e-mail, or for moral turpitude. Punching one's colleagues, showing up to class drunk or even chronically late or unprepared, smoking a J in one's office, or dating one's students can achieve that handily---or at least should, if the department Chair has any gumption.
Here's what Ed Nather has to say about tenure, in "Advice to the Young Astronomer":
Tenure: Seek it. Job security is comforting, but the main point about tenure is that you get to do what you want in the way of research. You will probably have to pay for it yourself - you won't get departmental funds after that business with the committee assignments - but you can find grant funds if you know what you want to do and can describe it well. You don't have to follow the "mainstream" of current astronomical research, and you shouldn't. If your primary goal is to learn how the universe really works, and not just to get your name in the newspaper, look where others are not exploring. Nature is so rich you are unlikely to look carefully at anything without learning something new, particularly in unexplored territory. New instruments are wonderful here. If you follow current fads in astronomy you'll just be wasting your time - the fad-followers will publish what they find and you can read about it, for free. If you have to rush to publish something, quick before you get scooped, you are doing the wrong research. Stop it, and do something nobody thinks is interesting. Trust me: it will be.