

The Ever-Shrinking Role of Tenured College Professors - graeham
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/the-ever-shrinking-role-of-tenured-college-professors-in-1-chart/274849/

======
maked00
Education has been on a lets get as top heavy as we can kick for years. Go to
any educational institution, anywhere in the US. Check out the oak paneling in
the administrative offices. Check out the explosion of administrative
positions. Check out the rise of administrator salaries. That is where the
money goes while class sizes increase, teacher salaries nosedive, and
essential core subjects get trivialized or cut.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Yes, well, that's what the corporate-capitalist model of enterprise does for
you. The people who control the means of production (in a university, that's
the administrators who control resources and staffing) are more important than
everyone else and will eat as large a portion of the pie as they can grab.

There are really only two ways out: labor struggle or cooperativization. I
recommend the latter, on grounds that it's actually the model traditional
universities used: the faculty ran the university in check and balance with
the trustees, who made ultra-high-level administrative decisions on behalf of
the public and the future. There's no reason not to simply undue the
neoliberalization of academia and go back to the proven model.

In fact, and I want to EMPHASIZE this, the only reason any shift ever took
place _away_ from the proven model was a _concerted political attack_ against
academia during the Culture Wars. Whatever you think of my obviously left-wing
views in general, you have to admit that until politicians started getting
elected on a platform of Stick It To Students, academia ran very well as a
public institution funded by taxpayers and capital-asset grants (like land-
grant colleges in the USA) and accountable primarily to voters, donors, and
academics themselves.

~~~
Jtsummers
> The people who control the means of production (in a university, that's the
> administrators who control resources and staffing) are more important than
> everyone else and will eat as large a portion of the pie as they can grab.

This reminds me of my current place of employment. A minor perk at many
offices is a reserved parking space. Before my time (90s, early 00s) the head
of the organization had a reserved spot, the rest were for the top engineers
with some spots rotating out based on quarterly or annual awards. In the early
00s the other managers began whining and eventually got their own reserved
spots. With 100+ reserved spaces at the front of the lot someone realized
they'd gone overboard. So they removed the engineers' reserved spots.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
_This reminds me of my current place of employment._

It's the Marxist description of capitalist employment, so you're supposed to
be reminded of your day-job.

~~~
Jtsummers
Good point. Interestingly, I work for the government[1]. It wasn't until this
facility started operating 'like a business' that a lot of the promanagement,
antilabor activities took off[2]. I'm always amused by my small government
libertarian colleagues that keep moaning about the government cutting spending
on us, but also want all food aid and social welfare gone. One day they'll
realize that we're on the government dole. Fortunately, I've developed a good
poker face.

EDIT:

[1] US since I shouldn't assume anything about my audience.

[2] I'm speaking about this facility, can't speak to government operations in
general.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
An additional point: contrary to a lot of orthodox left-wing views, it is
possible for major enterprises, especially public or nonprofit ones like
government agencies and universities, to run like something _other than_ a
capitalist business. A good summary of the 30-year ideological project known
as neoliberalism is, "The project to make _everything_ run like a capitalist
business, whether that works well or not."

~~~
Jtsummers
I think I'd enjoy having more discussions with you, and maybe when I'm less
distracted my input will be more than anecdotal observations. Look forward to
seeing you around the discussion board.

------
clarkevans
The percentage decline in tenure track faculty might be fine. Straight-up
instruction (non-tenure faculty) is also important; it provides employment for
those who don't make tenure.

Tenure level academia is demanding:

a) Once you've made it, you have a solid reward: a sustainable lifestyle
salary, freedom to work on what you wish, and, notoriety.

b) To make it, you have to work insane hours for about a decade or more (PhD,
post-doc, 5-years) -- where the first few years (5-8) pay very little, if
anything.

c) The odds of making it are against you -- many drop out in their PhD
("ABD"), fail to get post-doctorate work, fail to get a tenure track slot, or,
fail to get tenure.

The promise of tenure is the carrot that feeds expectations that can only be
met by talent and hard work.

~~~
theorique
_The promise of tenure is the carrot that feeds expectations that can only be
met by talent and hard work._

... and luck. Many talented and hard working people don't get tenure.

~~~
CognitiveLens
This is deeply true, and one of the major underlying problems is that the
shift toward non-tenure-track teaching positions is much more about cost
cutting than it is about providing teaching opportunities to those who just
weren't talented or hard-working enough to make tenure. It's a racket.

~~~
pasbesoin
It's not just tenure, it's benefits. Many institutions are keeping junior
staff part-time. Not only is the pay worse; you get no benefits.

This is not a recipe for social stability, e.g. enabling staff to raise
families, etc.

When the system goes this far, I'm sorry, but I have no other word for it than
"exploitative". (This is without delving into the topic of student debt, etc.)

P.S. And many people spend an inordinate amount of time commuting between
multiple part-time instruction gigs.

------
mathattack
I think this is old news. Tenure as a whole likely costs the system more than
it brings in intellectual freedom benefits. It's a fallacy to think that more
experienced tenured teachers are better educators, when it's research success
that got them tenure.

Jeff Selingo (<http://www.jeffselingo.com/>) writes extensively about how
colleges are reacting to changes in demographics and technology. He doesn't
think Yale or Harvard will need to change, but the public and private schools
a tier below will need to. His book ([http://www.amazon.com/College-Un-bound-
Education-Students/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/College-Un-bound-Education-
Students/dp/0544027078)) is a good read for parents.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
I think you are agreeing - It is the _research_ that matters. Newton for
example was a spectacularly bad teacher.
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Sir_Isaac_Newton#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Sir_Isaac_Newton#Academic_career))

~~~
mathattack
For tenure and societal benefit, yes. Was so for teaching though undergrad
research can be a good experience.

------
bromang
What is the trend for the overall number rather than percentage of tenured
college professors? Surely a large part of this is explained by the explosive
growth of higher education as a consumer commodity. We should not expect the
percentage of professors to increase if the demand for academics is being
driven by an increasing number of lower quality colleges.

------
lifeisstillgood
Meh.

There are two roles for Tenured College Professors:

    
    
      * Making intellectual bets that might not pay off for decades
    
      * Making Graduate students work hard
    

Everything else is gravy. The university and country that puts most effort
into these two will over the long term get the most out. The important thing
here is _tenure_. The next most important thing is you get to be a professor
because all the other professors think you might make a good one.

Just pay up the money, and make the empirical sciences better paid. Its like a
magic machine is edication. Put in money get out more.

If you want to see my poster-child for College Professors (#) go
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sddb0Khx0yA>.

(#) No, not _that_ Playboy spread. Different poster.

~~~
graeham
I think their role is a bit more complex than that. In most universities,
there is a teaching and mentoring role to undergraduates, which I think can
play a huge role in the direction of those students careers. There is also a
domain expertise that gets built around these people - they become walking
encyclopedias of their field which has value for society, government, and
industry to take their advice. Also, like your TED link, I think there is an
'incubating' role for tenured professors - some profs have an incredible
amount of innovation that gets inspired by and spin-off from their labs.
Particularly if the prof has entrepreneurial tenancies or at least values
commercializing and/or implementing outcomes of their research.

If you want to get university or country success compared to production of
tenured professors, its becomes even further complicated. I would argue that
the opportunity for collaboration and funding for students and equipment is
close in importance to skill of the tenured prof. This is probably what you
are saying with paying more to the empirical sciences (along with more tenure
spots) - and I agree with you on that.

The reason I posted is as an interesting addition to the common conversation
on HN of the role of academics. I think a tenured professor is a quite good
job and role. In contrast, nontenured senior academics are IMO not that well
compensated (salary or otherwise) for the amount and skill of work they do, at
least compared to industry or entrepreneurship.

(Background: I am a PhD student, but looking at entrepreneurship rather than
academia long term. I find it concerning the number of my friends and
colleagues planning academic careers vs the number of positions that will be
open).

Thanks for the TED link, I hadn't seen this one and its a very interesting
field. I'll have to restrain on comments to keep this on topic.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Why should you be the only one to keep on topic on an HN thread? :-)

