Why tenure matters?
Since the end of World War II, at least half of all university professors in North America have tenure: they cannot be dismissed without adequate cause. This job security is earned: you need to be a professor for several years, and to perform well, before you can be granted tenure.
At several schools, a large fraction of the teaching positions do not lead to tenure. There are claims that there is a growing trend to hire more and more people people on temporary positions. One justification for this trend might be that universities need the flexibility to adapt quickly to the market.
The same might be true of research institutions. While I worked at NRC, several projects were staffed by people whose contracts was for the duration of a project.
One argument that I hear to justify tenure is that it saves money. Indeed, people will accept a lower salary if they have job security. Even if the job market is favorable, even if if you could get more money elsewhere, few people like to change job frequently. Stability is nice.
But this argument is limited. What if the job market is difficult? If there is an oversupply of Ph.D.s, shouldn’t managers do away with tenure then?
Maybe not. Bland et al. have shown that tenure matters. According to their study, tenure-track professors perform significantly better than others:
faculty on tenure appointments are significantly more productive in research, more productive in education, more committed to their positions, (…)
Follow me on twitter!
Of course they are, “tenure” is a selection of the best people. It would be surprising if it was the other way around.
Comment by A. — 17/12/2007 @ 14:35
Once upon a time, not too long ago, there wasn’t tenure.
What would happen if we were to go back to this era? Would the best people still perform as well as they do now?
Comment by Daniel Lemire — 17/12/2007 @ 14:50
By the way, Israel’s universities are on strike for the last 50 days on issues related to a government reform in academic education, and also on a change in tenure procedures.
Comment by Eran — 17/12/2007 @ 14:57
This study seems to show that the tenure selection process works. The best people are selected. I find it hard to believe that tenure changes people to being more productive.
Comment by A. — 17/12/2007 @ 17:17
I find it hard to believe that tenure changes people to being more productive.
Yet, this is what the authors write:
(…) a non-tenure system may well be less conducive to commitment and productivity
Comment by Daniel Lemire — 17/12/2007 @ 18:27
Ah, which is cause and which is effect? Are the best people tenured, or is tenure conducive to productivity?
I suggest the latter. Most people who are non-tenure-track are hired that way, rather than being relegated to that after trying and failing to get tenure. The selection process that leads away from the tenure track often has little to do with productivity.
Comment by Michael Stiber — 25/12/2007 @ 17:59
I agree. But it is somehow more convenient to assume that all these people who are not tenured professors were not meant.
This has been said quite well, back in 1932: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World .
Comment by Daniel Lemire — 26/12/2007 @ 16:42