Megan McArdle’s recent piece in The Atlantic makes this claim. My favorite part was her response to the argument that it is tenure that allows professors to produce important research:
How about valuable scholarship? Well, define valuable–in many liberal arts fields, the only possible consumer of the research in question is a handful of scholars in the same field. That sort of research is valuable in the same way that children’s craft projects are priceless–to their mothers. Basically, these people are supporting an expensive hobby with a sideline business certifying the ability of certain twenty-year-olds to write in complete sentences.
Another point is equally compelling: tenure is supposed to encourage professors to take risks. But because the process of applying for and receiving tenure is highly political and consumes one’s early career, it often has the opposite effect: scholars early in their professions, when they are most likely to produce groundbreaking work, are far more risk-averse; by the time tenure is granted, a professor is more definitively committed to a specific academic trajectory with far less chance of groundbreaking research.
Lastly, McArdle points out that the process does not do much for the vast majority of tenure applicants who are not successful:
At the end of the process, most of the aspirants do not have tenure; they have dropped out, or been dropped, at some point along the way. Meanwhile, the system has ripped up their lives in other ways. They’ve invested their whole youth, and are back on the job market near entry level at an age when most of their peers have spent ten years building up marketable skills. Many of them will have seen relationships ripped apart by the difficulties of finding not one, but two tenure-track jobs in the same area. Others will have invested their early thirties in a college town with no other industry, forcing them to move elsewhere to restart both their careers and their social lives. Or perhaps they string along adjuncting at near-poverty wages, unable to quite leave the academy that has abused them for so long.
The entire piece is well worth a read, but it also made me think: if the arguments for tenure are so fragile for higher education, why in the world is it a fixture in K-12 education? (and commenters, please let’s not have a pedantic linguistic fight about “tenure” vs. “non-probationary” – duck, walk, quack, etc.)
The most cogent arguments for tenure in higher education almost uniformly do not apply to K-12. McArdle, in her discussion of tenure, notes:
I’m sure it’s protected more than one scholar from getting fired after making stupid remarks to a class. And we would all of us–not just academics–like to be immune from getting fired for making stupid remarks.
Tenure in higher ed can at least appeal – correctly or not — to the importance of of university research. It’s the rare argument that tenure improves undergraduate teaching. K-12 has no such shield, and the claims that tenure improves student learning seem to me to be even more sparse. I sure understand why K-12 teachers like the protections of tenure. I’m just not sure its benefits accrue to anyone else within the system.
By Education Information Center
I made no assertions of being right. My comments relate to McMegan’s lack of articulate arguments backed up with facts. Sorry, that quote was yours. Ok, so you don’t have anything to support your supposition.
That I say that her comment about elder scholars is insulting is merely my opinion. I faile to see what in the world is wrong with that. You get to state your opinion about younger scholars but it seems I should not comment in a similar vein.
Megan throws out a series of questions. They are fine questions. And her own answer is “perhaps.” And I say that her rhetorical tactic is no way to make a substantive point and this is not acceptable of me? Would you like me to provide a scholarly research paper noting the fallacious use of rhetorical questions in argumentation? Can I ask any more questions?
She never, ever says what the “staggering costs” of tenure actually are. I think that a writer should address what appears to be the main assertion of her essay. McArdle has a reputation of which you may not be aware for this kind of writing from within her own libertarian bubble and employing questionable rhetorical tactics in support of her views. Take it or leave it, Alex.
JJ,
Since your refutations here are virtually entirely of the “I’m right, she’s wrong” variety, and are supported primarily by adjectives (“callow” “rhetorical” “absurd” “insulting” etc) and very little substance, I think they should stand on their own. Although it’s worth pointing out that the quote troubling you in your penultimate paragraph is mine, not hers.
It’s good that you finally link to the Chronicle article, particularly since it presents a view on the debate that incorporates both sides and helps provide context, but it also does not do much to support your criticism. That tenure is declining is neither an argument for or against its validity.
I think it is also worth pointing out, partly as principle, that attacking the author is not something I personally find persuasive, particularly as McArdle writes for that crazed, totally-out-there radical magazine The Atlantic.
Oh noes, not a McMegan article. Alex, you can’t be serious.
She has no idea what she is talking about.
“The best you can say of the system is that it preserves a sort of continuity in schools that is desireable [sic] for the purposes of cultivating alumni donations.” Really, Megan, really? That really is the best she could say and that sentence isn’t even a back-handed compliment but more of a sneer. In fact, her entire essay reeks of a resentful, callow, right-wing mind not at work.
McArdle starts off her diatribe with this sentence: “But the cost of such a system is simply staggering.” Maybe the facts in evidence to back up that assertion were somewhere to be found in the essay but I didn’t find them.
“And what about the people who do get tenure, and are producing scholarship in areas that other people care about? Doesn’t tenure protect free intellectual inquiry? Diversity of thought? Doesn’t it allow teachers to be more demanding of students?
Perhaps–but the question is, at what point?” At what point about exactly what? At some point I get very tired of rhetorical questions masquerading as serious thought.
“Most scholars in their sixties are not producing path-breaking new research, but they are precisely the people that tenure protects.” This is patently absurd and insulting.
“…scholars early in their professions, when they are most likely to produce groundbreaking work, are far more risk-averse; by the time tenure is granted, a professor is more definitively committed to a specific academic trajectory with far less chance of groundbreaking research.” And where does McMegan get her information from on this? I know where…she makes this kind of stuff up all the time.
“How about valuable scholarship? Well, define valuable–in many liberal arts fields, the only possible consumer of the research in question is a handful of scholars in the same field. That sort of research is valuable in the same way that children’s craft projects are priceless–to their mothers.” So far, I fail to find anything she has written to make any substantive point or be related to reality. Really, Alex, McArdle is an Ayn Rand libertarian who writes on matters relating to economics and subjects she knows nothing about. Every profession has freeloaders and loafers. Was that her point? If so, not very original. Someday, someone will explain to her why tenure is still needed, cost effective and actually, is slowly going away in any case with only about 30% university faculty tenured or on the tenure track. http://chronicle.com/article/Tenure-RIP/66114/
Job security is a thing of the past if it ever really existed. I don’t know that age discrimination is reason enough to justify tenure, but administrators in schools and businesses are fully aware that clearing out some of the experienced professionals on higher salaries to replace them with newcomers at lower cost is a temptation, especially in lean times like the present. This brings us back to the old argument of how to justly measure teacher effectiveness… I’m on the fence on this issue. I think administrators need to be more willing to document and take on the issue of individual teachers who need to be directed away from working in schools. Tenure or not it is possible.
I do want to take issue with McArdle’s statement: “Well, define valuable–in many liberal arts fields, the only possible consumer of the research in question is a handful of scholars in the same field. That sort of research is valuable in the same way that children’s craft projects are priceless–to their mothers. Basically, these people are supporting an expensive hobby with a sideline business certifying the ability of certain twenty-year-olds to write in complete sentences.”
As a member of Phi Beta Kappa with a B.A. in Humanities, I believe this statement reflects an attitude that simply devalues the liberal arts. The research has purpose and an audience. Many who write for the general public – from historical fiction to nonfiction to documentaries for PBS or the history channel – reference academic research in order to continue to inform our citizens about the history of ideas and the creative mind. Say what you will about K-12 education, but the universities must continue to allow for studies that some may deem esoteric or not transparently pragmatic. Help us all if the only measure of educational value is whether people are being properly trained for the world of work.