Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site rochester.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!blenko From: blenko@rochester.UUCP (Tom Blenko) Newsgroups: net.misc,net.college Subject: Re: Proposal to replace academic tenure Message-ID: <737@rochester.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Sep-84 15:02:55 EDT Article-I.D.: rocheste.737 Posted: Wed Sep 19 15:02:55 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 20:56:49 EDT References: <166@inteloc.UUCP> Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept. Lines: 134 > > During my time in college life (student 7 1/2 years, teacher 6 > years), I saw many, many problems with the tenure system. Giving > someone almost total job security as a reward for 6 years of > excellence does not work well enough to provide students with an > environment of academic excellence. I have seen far too many of my > colleagues reach the rank of full professor, and then burn out as > teachers, but continue leading classes. I have also watched four > different departments try to fix this problem; none succeeded, as the > posession of tenure protected the offending party all too well. > > I have talked over several possible solutions with both tenured and > untenured faculty, department chairs, and administrators at about a > dozen universities and colleges. Except for a few die-hard pro-tenure > people (all tenured), they have all agreed that the following idea > should be workable. > > At the point in a professor's (generic term, not rank) career when > the tenure decision is traditionally made, the prof is instead granted > a long-term contract (say, for ten years, pun intended). Half-way > through this contract (five years), the prof comes up for review > again. If the review is favorable, the old (half-completed) contract > is replaced by a new one of the same length. If the review is > unfavorable, the prof comes up for review again in two years. If this > review is favorable, the old contract is replaced with a new one as > above. If this second review is also unfavorable, the prof has the > remainder of the old contract (three years) to find a new job. > > For example, Professor X serves State University faithfully from > fall 1984 through spring 1990. At this point, "X" is eligible for > "tenure", and is given a contract through spring of 2000. In 1995, "X" > is reviewed again, found to be a jolly good person; the old contract > is replaced by a new one which runs until spring 2005. In 2000, "X" > comes up for review again, and is found to be a fool. "X" works > diligently on teaching style, and passes the 2002 review with flying > collars (no rings); now "X" is given a contract that runs through > spring 2012. "X"s next review is in 2007. This time, "X" doesn't care > anymore, failing this review and the subsequent one in 2009. "X" now > has until spring 2012 to find a new job. > > Yes, this method allows a doubly-proved ninny to hang around for an > extra three years (or whatever, depending on contract length). > However, I believe that this is far better than allowing a perennially > adjudged ninny hang around until retirement age. It gives the > individual a large amount of job security, time to prove new teaching > methods, and an equally fair review process, while allowing the > college to move out "dead wood" in relatively short order. > > My thanks to the people, both students and faculty, who helped me > hammer out the details of this idea. > > Any response from the net? Feasibility at your university, > additions, etc are appreciated. -- T.F.Prune (Bill Wickart) {allegra | ihnp4 | tektronix} !ogcvax!inteloa -- "Operator, trace this call and tell me where I am" Your article seems to presume that the purpose of tenure is to provide job security. That may be one consequence of the tenure system, but it isn't the purpose for which tenure was intended. Tenure is intended to provide protection for the intellectual endeavors of faculty members. After an institution has had the opportunity to evaluate the quality of a faculty member, it makes a decision about whether the individual merits tenure or not. This protection is deemed necessary to protect the quality of intellectual endeavors. It prevents, for example, the termination of faculty members because they choose to pursue research in Keynesian economics or biological evolution. This places the responsibility of judging the (intellectual) value of research endeavors in the hands of the researchers, rather than the trustees or adminstrators of the nation's institutions. In practice, the tenure decision is often associated with a continue-or-terminate decision. The principal reason for this, I understand, is that the faculty, rather than the institutions, wish to prevent faculty members from being continued indefinitely without tenure. Otherwise, an institution might find it to its advantage to make a common practice of indefinite continuation, with tenure being extended only in exceptional circumstances. Tenure is imperfect, as was indicated in the previous article. It protects non-performers. It doesn't go far enough to protect a faculty member against adminstrative sanctions. I'm sure there are lots of finer-grained problems. There are any number of (what I judge to be) misinterpretations of tenure: 1) That tenure should guarantee lifetime employement. 2) That protection of a faculty member's intellectual endeavors should include non-professional endeavors. For example, I see no reason why a faculty member's non-professional statements/activity should be protected by tenure, e.g., Mathematics professors who use their positions to make statements about defense policy. There also seem to be abundant mis-applications of tenure as a suitable practice for protecting intellectual integrity: 1) Tenure is given to faculty of institutions whose primary criterion for evaluation is not research activity. 2) Tenure is given to faculty of institutions in which research activity is an irrelevant criterion for evaluation (e.g. community colleges and high schools). The proposal which has been offered seems to address the issue of faculty who become tenured and then become non-performers in their teaching duties. Several comments: In many good-quality universities, teaching ability/performance is a negligible factor in tenure decisions. One can hardly expect these institutions to be concerned about teaching performance after a tenure decision if they are unconcerned about it prior to the tenure decision. If a faculty member's primary duties are teaching, why not make that explicit, including making his/her position untenurable? In short, (I claim) tenure is not the source of the problem you have identified, but the practice of institutions (and the AAUP!) in granting/demanding it. Tenure is imperfect, with respect to the purposes I have outlined, but your proposal doesn't address that (and apparently doesn't intend to). There is lots of management experience dealing with the issue of addressing employees' performance, so if that's the problem, that seems like a good place to look. Tom