For our CUFers who are academics

[LA Ute]

This was a really striking statement:

"You have to talk about Amy Bishop's mental health in this situation as one of the variables, but being denied tenure when you're in your mid-40s at an out-of-the-way obscure rural campus in the deep South is a catastrophic loss, and people don't understand that," says Jack Levin, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston. "If you're denied tenure, you're fired. And in this economy chances are you'll have to change your career, which is pretty hard for a woman who's spent a decade in graduate school on a prestigious campus, Harvard, and had a good reputation for scholarship. Where is she going to go?"

Just curious about your take on this and the whole question of tenure, its importance, recovering when it is denied, and such.

[Indy Coug]

How difficult would it be for someone in this situation to find a teaching position at a elementary school or high school, let alone another college?

[byu71]

I think it would be wise in the future to never deny anyone tenure to avoid situations like this.

Also, people who have beefs with the IRS should be allowed to not pay taxes to avoid situations like happened in Texas.

[Moliere]

Welcome to the real world where sometimes you get fired and have to pick upnew skills even when you are middle aged.

[pellegrino]

good to see that the academics are answering the question.

[byu71]

good to see that the academics are answering the question.

Are we academics or academians? I want to make sure I don't mislead anyone.

[pellegrino]

Are we academics or academians? I want to make sure I don't mislead anyone.

I'll let you figure that one out. Here's a good resource: http://www.m-w.com/

[Solon]

Are we academics or academians? I want to make sure I don't mislead anyone.

I'm not an expert, so I'll defer to the tenured folk around here, but I'd like to point out first-off that "tenure" is misunderstood. It doesn't mean that it's impossible to fire someone. It does make it harder to do, though.

As an outsider, I'm more against tenure than I should be because it provides job security to folks who might not deserve it. I've had many professors who wouldn't get tenure with today's requirements, but had the chance to start their careers 40 years ago. As a young buck, full of cutting-edge scholarship, I'm a little indignant that I'm out of work but Old-Timer Prof. is still teaching with his 1984 syllabus (this is a true example - I teach the same course at my school that one of the emeritus professors teaches. His syllabus hasn't been updated in 25 years; his course is a lot easier than mine too. You can guess which one the students prefer). Like Eddie Jones noted, the chance you might lose your job keeps you sharp.

On the other hand, tenure is a safeguard to ensure academic freedom. This is very important too, although I'd venture that free speech and academic freedom are less threatened in our day-and-age. It's interesting to note that the byu doesn't have "tenure" in the traditional sense, although "continuing status" is a rough equivalent. I don't really have a problem with this.

Finally, tenure is on the decline (in the humanities, at least). While I wouldn't mind having a five-year or ten-year contract as an alternative to tenure, more and more schools are focusing on hiring adjunct faculty who teach for very low pay. This is in response to the recession's increased enrollments in higher education, but decreased funding and endowments for those who teach these kids. (See this New York Times article from 3 weeks ago.) This is fine as a supplement, but it's really tough to make a living teaching as an adjunct.


Although, if I ever managed to grab a tenure-track slot, I'd probably become a big supporter of it.

[statman]

Places like Alabama Huntsville are supposed to be easy to get tenure, where you can just go, keep your head down and draw a relatively easy salary until retirement. The publish or perish mantra generally hasn't made it down to those schools. To get tenure, it's generally about putting in your time and publishing SOMETHING of value - SOMEWHERE.

Being denied tenure at a C-list teaching school because you're research wasn't good enough is a pretty big blow to an academic. Especially one who thinks she's really good and deserves to be teaching at an A school.

[byu71]

I'll let you figure that one out. Here's a good resource: http://www.m-w.com/

I guess I am not one after all. Unless the fact that I actually went and researched the words makes me one.

[Solon]

Places like Alabama Huntsville are supposed to be easy to get tenure, where you can just go, keep your head down and draw a relatively easy salary until retirement. The publish or perish mantra generally hasn't made it down to those schools. To get tenure, it's generally about putting in your time and publishing SOMETHING of value - SOMEWHERE.

Being denied tenure at a C-list teaching school because you're research wasn't good enough is a pretty big blow to an academic. Especially one who thinks she's really good and deserves to be teaching at an A school.

A lot of these mid-level (teaching) schools have decided that upping the publication requirements for tenure is the best way to raise their national profiles, while not scaling back on the teaching requirements. I have a friend who taught at Eastern Washington for awhile, but was expected to churn out lots of articles while teaching 12 courses a year (quarter system). Ironically, the profs at the Research1 school where he did his PhD were expected to do about the same amount of research while teaching 4 classes a year (semester system).

My friend quit and now works as manager of a Home Depot near Spokane. He makes more money and is happier.

Almost everyone who has a PhD is really, really accomplished as an undergraduate and graduate student. It's a serious blow to the ego when you realize that everyone else you're competing with is also really, really smart and Northeast Louisiana Technical School of Mining is about as good as you're gonna do.

[landpoke]

This was a really striking statement:

"You have to talk about Amy Bishop's mental health in this situation as one of the variables, but being denied tenure when you're in your mid-40s at an out-of-the-way obscure rural campus in the deep South is a catastrophic loss, and people don't understand that," says Jack Levin, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston. "If you're denied tenure, you're fired. And in this economy chances are you'll have to change your career, which is pretty hard for a woman who's spent a decade in graduate school on a prestigious campus, Harvard, and had a good reputation for scholarship. Where is she going to go?"

Just curious about your take on this and the whole question of tenure, its importance, recovering when it is denied, and such.

I would think she'd be thankful for being spared that sort of hell.

[LA Ute]

good to see that the academics are answering the question.

BTW, I hope that's not an offensive term. I meant it as descriptive and actually quite honorific.

[pellegrino]

This was a really striking statement:

"You have to talk about Amy Bishop's mental health in this situation as one of the variables, but being denied tenure when you're in your mid-40s at an out-of-the-way obscure rural campus in the deep South is a catastrophic loss, and people don't understand that," says Jack Levin, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston. "If you're denied tenure, you're fired. And in this economy chances are you'll have to change your career, which is pretty hard for a woman who's spent a decade in graduate school on a prestigious campus, Harvard, and had a good reputation for scholarship. Where is she going to go?"

Just curious about your take on this and the whole question of tenure, its importance, recovering when it is denied, and such.

Let me give you an idea of what getting a stable job is like in my field. First of all, tenure track jobs are being offered less and less. Many institutions are instead offering renewable appointments that pay less and require fewer resources from the institution. This benefits the universities but really exploits academics. I don't want to get into academic freedom issues, but that is one aspect of it.

in 2006, there were a grand total of 45 tenure track jobs out there in Italian studies. Of those positions I was somewhat qualified for about half and truly qualified for about ten or so. I'm fortunate because enrollment in Italian courses has increased and my specific field (twentieth century lit and cinema) is somewhat trendy right now. I have friends who could really only apply for about five or six jobs, simply because they could not demonstrate that they are qualified to teach certain areas/fields. On top of that at least half of the jobs they could apply to would be advertised as "specialization open" which broadens the field and increases the number of applicants.

In 2007 there were fewer tenure track jobs (about 35 total) and in 2008 there were even fewer (around 26) and many jobs were withdrawn after the financial crisis because they lost funding. That happened this year as well.

For every job I applied to there were at least 50 and in some cases more than 100 applicants. Usually they narrow the field down to between 10 and 15 for preliminary interviews and then there are usually three finalists.

In short, there aren't that many tenure track jobs and competition for each job is fierce. I had two non tenure track jobs before I got the job I have now. I consider myself very fortunate. I have friends who are on their third and fourth job and no real hope of a tenure track job in the near future and some have little hope for even a contract job. I know two whose contracts end in May and they will be unemployed. I faced a similar situation in the past.

As for pressure in tenure, that depends entirely on the institution. Some are very good and have guidelines for tenure and promotion spelled out clearly, others do not, and then others change the rules of the game in mid-flight.

As for this woman, I can't understand her. While she may have a difficult time getting another job at an institution she has a Phd in biology, which unlike a Phd in the humanities, qualifies her to work in all sorts of privately held companies and corporations. She has far more employment possibilities than most academics. Whether or not she realized that is a different question.

I think that her not getting tenure was indeed devastating, but there are underlying mental problems that caused her to act out in that way. Normal people do not react that way when things go badly. Her failure aggravated already existing problems.

BTW, I hope that's not an offensive term. I meant it as descriptive and actually quite honorific.

It's not, I was mainly referring to the qualifications of those who responded.

[pellegrino]

A lot of these mid-level (teaching) schools have decided that upping the publication requirements for tenure is the best way to raise their national profiles, while not scaling back on the teaching requirements. I have a friend who taught at Eastern Washington for awhile, but was expected to churn out lots of articles while teaching 12 courses a year (quarter system). Ironically, the profs at the Research1 school where he did his PhD were expected to do about the same amount of research while teaching 4 classes a year (semester system).

My friend quit and now works as manager of a Home Depot near Spokane. He makes more money and is happier.

Almost everyone who has a PhD is really, really accomplished as an undergraduate and graduate student. It's a serious blow to the ego when you realize that everyone else you're competing with is also really, really smart and Northeast Louisiana Technical School of Mining is about as good as you're gonna do.

In addition, those at R1 schools are often teaching courses that are directly related to their research, not just gen. ed. or introductory courses. Their course prep is essentially research time.

This is a problem that a lot of smaller schools are having, including my own. I don't understand it because it really does nothing to help the profession or the school and it screams third rate. Why would anyone want to do that much research with that kind of course load if they can go to a research school, get treated better and get more pay?

The irony is that a lot of these schools are lowering the bar for admission as well. The movement to make SAT/ACT scores optional is being hailed as the great equalizer in education and an innovative move. How ironic is it that these same schools are requiring more traditional types of research for their faculty and in fact regressing in their openness to the new market forces of publishing.