January 22, 2006
Response on Tenure-BECKER
Overall high quality comments on my discussion of tenure. A few responses.
Professors at the vast majority of colleges and universities do very little research, long-term or any other type. Serious research is concentrated at 50-100 universities. So it is hard to see the length of time it takes to complete major research as an argument for tenure at the remaining 3000 or so colleges and universities. Moreover, Bell Labs in its heyday, and other corporate research centers have encouraged long-term research without giving tenure. Good organizations, whether universities or corporations, will see the potential of original research, whereas bad ones will not, with or without tenure.
I do not know enough about what Boston University offered. If they did offer both tenure and non-tenure options, the data would tell us something useful about the value placed on tenure, although more risk-averse professors will tend to choose the tenure route.
I agree with some of the comments that several year contracts that are renewable may well be the way to go in academia. This would provide better incentives to professors during their prime years. It would also help get around the foolish Federal law that prevents universities from forcing older professors to retire, except in extreme circumstance.
Perhaps university administrators desire tenure because their evaluation by higher ups is shortsighted. But good colleges and universities would be better managed than that, given the competitiveness of the market for higher education in the United States. In fact, the survival of tenure in such a competitive higher education market often makes me wonder if the arguments against tenure are overlooking some important reasons why tenure may improve performance and efficiency.
James Miller was a student of mine, and a very good student indeed. He is also politically conservative in the sense that he believes in the advantages of free markets and a private enterprise system. Unfortunately, most faculties, including many economics departments, do not appreciate such views. That said, I must add that I do not know the situation at Smith, and why he was initially denied tenure, although it is interesting and relevant to the answer that he apparently won his appeal.
Posted by Gary Becker at 06:05 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lessig.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1105
Comments
Beautifully irrelevant article, sir. Let me give you an alternative to your first sentences, see you how stomach it.
Judges at the vast majority of administrative organizations and courts do very little research, long term or any other type. Serious research is concentrated in the law clerks.
Under your rationale, Judge Posner should have done a whole lot better if he would have had the threat of losing his judgeship in his prime years.
I understand that the judge's right to lifetime tenancy is guaranteed by the constitution, whereas professors have no such legal guarantee. However, the entire edifice of Western education is set upon the back of lifetime tenure of the professor. That tradition is as sacrosanct as the constitution. Of course, your efficiency theories don't care for tradition much, do they?
You can find the remainder of my critique of your suggestion below: eteraz.wordpress.com
Posted by Eteraz at January 24, 2006 12:45 AM | direct link
[url src="http://321portal.biz/no-fax-cash-advance/"]No Fax Cash Advances[/url]
No Fax Cash Advance Links:
Posted by No Fax Cash Advance at January 27, 2006 02:50 PM | direct link
