Should tenure for college professors be abolished?

[QuantMech]

sakky, that would be a wonderful education for the billionaire's children (who could afford it).

[juillet]

If the surgeons are teaching anatomy, who will be performing surgery? If CEOs are teaching business classes who is going to be running the business? We're talking about people in professions that take a lot of time; these people don't have time to do their jobs effectively and teach adjunct classes on a regular basis anywhere.

"educational contract" of low wages + great benefits + short hours + tenure

I'm amused at the idea of a professor working "short hours."

[sakky]

sakky, that would be a wonderful education for the billionaire's children (who could afford it).

Actually, it would be an even more wonderful education for those who aren't billionaires, but who want to be. Again, frankly, I can't think of a more compelling and practical education that could possibly be offered, as the networking opportunities alone are legion.

As for affordability, well, that's what financial markets are for. If I was a banker, I'd probably spot the capital necessary to fund that sort of education because those who receive it are likely to obtain exceptionally well-paying jobs. That seems to be a far wiser financial bet than the hundreds of thousands of student loans that have already been originated to underwrite, frankly, low-paying arts/humanities majors.

If the surgeons are teaching anatomy, who will be performing surgery?...We're talking about people in professions that take a lot of time; these people don't have time to do their jobs effectively and teach adjunct classes on a regular basis anywhere.

I don't know, how about perhaps the surgeons themselves?.

The fact is, numerous practicing surgeons - along with physicians of other specialties - also happen to be active university faculty, usually at a medical school. Indeed, much of the teaching/research faculty at any medical school - often times the majority- also happen to be practicing physicians who maintain a patient case load.

As a case in point, Robert Stanton is one of the nephrologists in the world, being Chief of Nephrology at Joslin Diabetes Center, which is arguably the world's leading medical center for diabetes care. Stanton also happens to teach the Harvard Medical School MD program's required year-long Human Systems course, which, while perhaps not an 'Anatomy' course per se, isn't entirely dissimilar from one. And, granted, while Stanton isn't a surgeon, I would argue that the care he provides to patients who largely suffer from advanced and/or unusual cases of diabetes and associated kidney disease (e.g. Kimmelstiel-Wilson syndrome) is at least as crucial as that provided by the surgeons.

Perhaps somebody ought to contact Harvard Medical School and tell them that they should immediately fire Stanton and the rest of the faculty who also serve as practicing physicians, on the grounds that they don't have the time to be both teaching classes while also seeing patients.

If CEOs are teaching business classes who is going to be running the business?

Again, perhaps those very same CEO's? Why not? Former CEO & Chairman of Intel Andrew Grove has been teaching management courses at Stanford since 1991 and also taught graduate engineering courses at Berkeley in that same decade. He continued to be CEO of Intel until 1998 and Chairman until 2005.

If Grove can successfully run the largest and most profitable semiconductor firm in world history while also teaching at both Berkeley and Stanford, is it really so outrageous to think that other active business leaders might also be able to teach college courses?

As another example, consider Bob Higgins , who teaches at Harvard Business School while also serving as General Partner (and founder) at Highland Capital Partners, one of the more successful venture capital firms in the world. Or consider Felda Hardymon who also teaches at Harvard Business School while serving as a Partner at Bessemer Venture Partners. Maybe somebody should contact Highland/Bessemer and tell them that their top partners are irresponsibly spreading themselves too thin by spending time teaching and not devoting sufficient time to managing their investment portfolios.

[sakky]

I'm amused at the idea of a professor working "short hours."

If so, then you will surely find epic tragicomedy amongst the tenured faculty at most universities, even (or perhaps especially) amongst the top-ranked research universities. I think most people who have been around academia can name more than a handful of tenured faculty who, frankly, haven't really seemed to have done much for years on end.

But don't take my word for it. Consider the lamentations published in the Journal of Management Inquiry by Don Hambrick, one of the leading management scholars in the world and former President of the Academy of Management.

"...Once, a newly-tenured
colleague, steeped in the language of economics, told
me—without a hint of sheepishness—that he wasnow
going to do some “profit-taking.” He intended to
enjoy the fruits of his prior hard work by greatly
increasing his outside consulting and spending more
time on his hobbies. Within 3 years, he was seen as a
noncontributor, a bad joke, in his department and
school..." - Don Hambrick, "Letter to a Newly Tenured Professor", Journal of Management Inquiry, 2005, 14:300, page 301.

And it is precisely that sort of behavior that is the reason why numerous people believe that tenure ought to be abolished. Tenure is the ultimate 'asymmetrically-valued good' because those academics who continue to be highly productive have little need for tenure, for if they ever lose their job, some other university is likely to snap them up. It is precisely those academics who cease to be productive who value tenure the most, but they are also the very same academics who deserve it the least.

[sakky]

from a Wall Street Journal article:
Vote: Should tenure for college professors be abolished? - Ideas Market - WSJ

As much as I love the WSJ, I believe that in this particular article, their prescription does not match the diagnosis. If the problem, according to the WSJ, is that tenure encourages the production of (ostensibly) excessive research at the expense of teaching, then the most appropriate solution is to then shift tenure decisions in favor of teaching quality and less towards research. And indeed some schools - even top research universities such as Berkeley - will grant tenure to lecturers who are judged largely by their teaching contributions.

As I mentioned in my last post, I think the real problem is not with professors, either pre- or post-tenure, spending too much time on research in lieu of teaching, but rather with tenured professors who basically do little of either, but rather exploit their tenured status as a sinecure that pays a guaranteed annuity.

[Momzie]

What a sitting senator does is vastly different from what a government professor does. You might learn something, but you would not achieve a vast knowledge of the principles of American government since the founding fathers, the legislative debates which occurred throughout that period, the ins and outs of campaign finance, the changing role of outside interests in the legislative process, etc. Instead, you'd get to hear about the bill that was voted on last week. You would essentially be learning current events, which would quickly be out of date and stale, and in a few years your degree would be meaningless. When you suggest that what a practitioner does is the same as what an analyst does, you just make yourselves look silly.

[QuantMech]

sakky, the observation that leading physicians teach in top medical schools seems beside the point to me. I thought you were writing about the undergraduate anatomy course.

It is unsurprising that leading practitioners would work with pre-selected students at the graduate level. This happens in all fields. But that's a long way from teaching all junior pre-meds (even thought they too have already been selected to a certain extent by surviving organic chemistry).

With regard to the tuition costs, you might get a banker to invest in few students who have been accepted to top business schools--but that's quite different from investing in a college freshman.

[NewHope33]

How much might a top CEO cost for sharing his wisdom? Here's one data point:
The Associated Press: Cost to lunch with Warren Buffett: $3.5 million

Just thinking out loud here ... but what kind of background would a "student" need to take advantage of Mr. Buffett's pearls of wisdom? (And where might the student acquire that background?)

[annasdad]

I'm amused at the idea of a professor working "short hours."

What's "working?"

A physics professor reading a professional journal. Is that working?

How about a business professor reading the Wall Street Journal?

Or a music professor listening to an iPod?

Or an English professor rereading Hamlet?

[NewHope33]

Is a geologist traveling to Hawaii to watch lava flow working?

Is a businessman entertaining clients on a golf course working?

Is a professional musician practicing a favorite piece working?

Is a rare book dealer attending an auction working?

[xiggi]

As I mentioned in my last post, I think the real problem is not with professors, either pre- or post-tenure, spending too much time on research in lieu of teaching, but rather with tenured professors who basically do little of either, but rather exploit their tenured status as a sinecure that pays a guaranteed annuity.

You could add a list of additional issues, both at the start and the "targeted" end of tenure.

1. For many starting the tenure track means the start of the research/publish model. Although this might be seen as fair, this as created a "wealth" of high volume, low-quality research seeking to build the necessary amount of published research. The purpose being to either get tenure by the reviewerd who support similar research or build the vita for another academic experience. Researchers are known to admit that they refrained to engage in novel (harder) or less popular research until having secured the tenure plum.

2. The legislation regarding age discrimination that started in academic circles in 1994 added an unexpected twist to the notion of long-term secured unemployment. Tenure is one thing, but offering lifetime employment to octogenarians might not have been anticipated by the "system." Despite the merits of a system that rewards the old and wise over the young and unproven, this might severally limit the access to tenure for the subsequent generations. Although the number of tenured faculty has increased in absolute numbers over the past decades, it has also decreased percentage-wise. A clear indication that the system is not as tenable in the long run as some might think or ... hope for.

[sakky]

sakky, the observation that leading physicians teach in top medical schools seems beside the point to me. I thought you were writing about the undergraduate anatomy course.

It is unsurprising that leading practitioners would work with pre-selected students at the graduate level. This happens in all fields. But that's a long way from teaching all junior pre-meds (even thought they too have already been selected to a certain extent by surviving organic chemistry).

With regard to the tuition costs, you might get a banker to invest in few students who have been accepted to top business schools--but that's quite different from investing in a college freshman.

I took the Newhope's sentiments expressed in post #33 as a topic of potential speculation. Sure, perhaps it might be far-fetched to expect the world's top bankers or physicians to teach college freshmen under today's educational system. But would it really still be so far-fetched for them to teach college freshmen - or at least, a select group of them - to be taught by top practitioners within a reformed system.

Regarding the notion you invoke of medical practitioners teaching undergraduates, well, that's exactly what happens right now under the medical educational systems in numerous foreign nations, including many who boast of health-care systems that, according to the WHO surpass that of the United States. Aspiring physicians in much of Western Europe have no need for 'graduate studies'. They can dispense entirely with having to obtain a separate bachelor' degree but can instead enter medical school right out of high school. And yes, some of their coursework may indeed be taught by practicing medical staff, including physicians.

Yet at the same time, I don't think anybody would seriously accuse the medical establishments of Western Europe of employing incompetent physicians or of otherwise providing substandard care. Indeed, it seems to me that Europeans enjoy high-quality medical care that is entirely comparable - and on certain dimensions may even exceed- that received by Americans. While an argument perhaps could be made that the best American physicians are better than the best European physicians, I'm not convinced that much difference in quality exists between the average physicians of either system. And let's face it, the average American will not receive care from the nation's best physicians, but rather will tend to receive care from a relatively average one.

So if Americans who aim to become physicians must wait until they enter graduate studies before they receive instruction provided by currently practicing medical staff, it is only because we designed this nation's medical training system to ensure that it be so. The notion of aspiring physicians, while still as undergraduates, receiving course instruction from currently practicing medical staff is rather unremarkable in many nations in the world.

With regard to the tuition costs, you might get a banker to invest in few students who have been accepted to top business schools--but that's quite different from investing in a college freshman.

Then let me put it to you this way. Up to a mere few years ago, the MIT Sloan School of Management used to offer a course on Sports Management that was open to anybody who could obtain course instructor permission, including MIT freshmen (and potentially even Harvard freshman through cross-reg). That instructor who provided such permission was none other than Daryl Morey, who at the time was also Senior Vice President of the Boston Celtics, is currently General Manager of the Houston Rockets, and who would later be named one of the 'Top Ten Most Creative People in Sports' by Fast Company. {Indeed, it was his move to the Rockets that sadly forced him to cancel the course.} He co-taught the course with Jessica Gelman who at the time was Director and is currently Vice President of the New England Patriots.

Maybe somebody should have told the Boston Celtics and New England Patriots that their executives should not be investing in the instruction of college undergraduates, including freshmen.

[QuantMech]

Just curious, sakky: was it common for MIT or Harvard freshmen to receive the permission of the instructor to enroll in the course on sports management that you mention? Did that include students who were not varsity team members?

Usually "permission of instructor" is a code-phrase for "students the instructor has selected from the set of interested students." This might not be the case in some places. In the schools with which I am familiar, however, there are typically many more students who want to enroll in the "permission of the instructor" courses than there are spots in the courses.

[sakky]

What a sitting senator does is vastly different from what a government professor does. You might learn something, but you would not achieve a vast knowledge of the principles of American government since the founding fathers, the legislative debates which occurred throughout that period, the ins and outs of campaign finance, the changing role of outside interests in the legislative process, etc. Instead, you'd get to hear about the bill that was voted on last week. You would essentially be learning current events, which would quickly be out of date and stale, and in a few years your degree would be meaningless. When you suggest that what a practitioner does is the same as what an analyst does, you just make yourselves look silly.

Actually, what I'm 'suggesting' is that, frankly, most current poli-sci undergrads right now don't really learn, as you say, the "vast knowledge of the principles of American government since the founding fathers, the legislative debates which occurred throughout that period, the ins and outs of campaign finance, the changing role of outside interests in the legislative process, etc". Let's be perfectly honest: the vast majority of poli-sci undergrads are not going to become professional political scientists, and never had the intention of doing so. Even from a top poli-sci department such as Berkeley, the vast majority of students pursue careers that have little to do with political science; indeed, apparently some become store manages at Abercrombie & Fitch or work sales at Macy's.

Salman Khan said it best when he said that the vast majority of undergrads are in college primarily to garner a decent job or perhaps as a stepping stone for grad school after which they hope to garner a decent job, and therefore need the bachelor's degree as a 'credential' - a credential that (according to Khan) universities generally spend only 5-10% of their costs to directly provide, with the rest being devoted to activities such as research that, frankly, are ancillary to the goals of most undergraduates.

Therefore while a sitting Senator may not be able to provide the deep theoretical knowledge in political science that you mentioned, most undergraduates don't really want that. But what they might want is the entree to an actual job or networking contacts that a Senator might provide. For example, a Senator can surely provide access to internships, perhaps unpaid, within his own Senate Office. Or perhaps he can serve as a connection to other Senators and politicians who might have such open internship opportunities. Either way, I would argue that he would probably provide an experience that is more aligned with the true goals of most poli-sci majors.

[sakky]

Just curious, sakky: was it common for MIT or Harvard freshmen to receive the permission of the instructor to enroll in the course on sports management that you mention? Did that include students who were not varsity team members?

Usually "permission of instructor" is a code-phrase for "students the instructor has selected from the set of interested students." This might not be the case in some places. In the schools with which I am familiar, however, there are typically many more students who want to enroll in the "permission of the instructor" courses than there are spots in the courses.

Well, I'll tell you this, I have never once heard of anybody who wanted to take the course who Morey rejected; indeed, my understanding is that Morey was openly hoping for more enrollees. I believe that there may have even been a Wellesley girl taking the course through the MIT-Wellesley Xreg program. Granted, perhaps she wasn't a freshman, but she would still have been an undergraduate.

Nor is this a course that would seem to be particularly appealing to athletes. The course revolved around Moneyball-style 'sports analytics' to attempt to mathematically and statistically optimize the performance of sports teams, whether we're talking about regular-season performance, playoff performance (which is only imperfectly correlated with regular-season performance), or marketing revenues. The course therefore tended to attract MBA students, or in some cases, PhD students in business or economics, who are interested in careers in quantitative sports management - essentially to be the next Billy Beane, Theo Epstein, or, yes, Daryl Morey or Jessica Gelman. Indeed, I know many MBA students - being the social butterflies that they are - viewed the course primarily as a means to establish a network with Morey and Gelman.