Is Tenure Defensible?
For discussion, see here, here, and here. I want to highlight one important point that Brian Leiter makes in the last of those three links, namely that tenure is a form of non-monetary compensation, and that academic salaries would likely skyrocket in its absence.
At least the first half of this claim is, I think, obviously right. The average tenure-track academic has spent nearly a decade in graduate school during which he or she did full-time work for a salary barely above the poverty line, then endured a brutal job market resulting in a stressful and often thankless job, likely with a salary that’s about half that of his or her friends who bailed out of academia and spent a measly three years in law school. I’m not complaining, of course! – but let me just say that this arrangement is made significantly more attractive by fact that those who make it through the crucible don’t have to face the usual worries about getting fired when times get tough or the management shifts around. Would many academics be doing this anyway, if the pay were still poor but the job less secure? Speaking for myself, probably yes, which is part of why I’m not quite sold on Leiter’s claim that the abolition of tenure would have “astronomic” impacts on the costs of hiring faculty. (It might just as well make it so that the overall quality of the professoriate was not as good.) But the prospect of tenure does do quite a lot to offset the various things that might otherwise steer people away from careers in academic, and it’s important not to overlook that influence.
I agree that the claim that the abolition of tenure would have an “astronomic” impact on the cost of hiring faculty is surely exaggerated, at least in general, but another way of putting that is that without the tenure system academics would be paid more. Is it obviously a bad idea to trade non-monetary compensation for monetary compensation? It’s not as if the abolition of tenure would turn everyone into adjuncts; if a school wants to hire someone they will be willing to sign long-term contracts. Indeed it seems to me that part of the problem with the tenure system as it currently operates is precisely that it eliminates the middle ground between a job for life and working with the Sword of Damocles over your head.
So Leiter’s third point cuts both ways, but I think his first point is a good one that often gets missed in these discussions. Tenure doesn’t mean that your job security is absolute, it means that you can only be fired for cause. It’s an interesting question why in practice it often seems to protect faculty for whom there really are grounds for dismissal, but I’ll spare you my theories on that.
— Peter W. · Jul 22, 04:29 PM · #
Would many academics be doing this anyway, if the pay were still poor but the job less secure?
eternal adjuncts and lecturers do anyway….
— razib · Jul 22, 04:30 PM · #
I see this a lot. What exactly is meant by “barely above the poverty line”?
— stuart · Jul 22, 07:48 PM · #
How about $15k a year?
— John Schwenkler · Jul 22, 10:26 PM · #
Is tenure really ‘non-monetary’ compensation? A promise that a person, barring major misconduct, will receive an income stream (including benefits like health care, retirement plan, etc.) for a thirty to forty year period may or may not be a good idea, but future risk-free income is discounted at a much lower rate than uncertain employment status, and certainly looks a lot like monetary compensation to me.
— John Henry · Jul 22, 11:27 PM · #
Also, welcome back to blogging. It’s been a while.
— John Henry · Jul 22, 11:30 PM · #
Home medical equipment is a category of devices which is used for patients whose care is being managed from a home or other private facility managed by a nonprofessional caregiver or family member.
— home medical equipment · Jul 27, 07:14 AM · #