This is important because it could have a very big impact on A&M. Including the ability to recruit faculty.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/20/texas-senate-tenure-universities/

As reasonable as this sounds, I guarantee it's going to be used to degrade the quality of college degrees AND defraud the public at the same time.

Oh nooooo

The tissues in my waste basket runneth over

Well, it would keep new profs from lying through the interview process and then waving the "tenure" flag (if they were given that status) and doing whatever they wanted, but then it would also keep quality profs from wanting to come here because they would be worried about job security.

Sadly this will be used by lefty admins to get rid of whatever old fart conservatives are left to bring in more woke idiots.

They can sign a long-term contract with the school based on certain requirements. If school fails to uphold their end, they can leave and get paid out for the remaining contract. Good old work contracts.

Hell you can't get govt workers to leave if you offer a pension. - Don't recommend.

Hell offer tenure for a limited time (3-5 years) on a rotating basis to the best person in the dept. Incentivizes people to work hard for a mid-term benefit, and allows flexibility to remove individuals.

The best thing that could happen to high education is to burn it down, grind it to dust, and find a way to start over to where it was actually worth something again.

At this point, don't care what happens to any of it.

Austin is accumulating too much power.

Good move. The concept of tenure is ridiculous.

I've worked 30+ years in industry, and I don't have tenure.

I earn the opportunity every day to come back the next day by delivering on what my employer expects of me. Same for the people who work for me.

Crazy concept, I know, lol.

Tree Hugger said:

---

Well, it would keep new profs from lying through the interview process and then waving the "tenure" flag (if they were given that status) and doing whatever they wanted, but then it would also keep quality profs from wanting to come here because they would be worried about job security.

---

The fact that the seniors of an entire industry don't have to worry about job security is ridiculous in the first place. Prof's are in high demand everywhere, the only way you aren't getting another job at another school is if you screwed something up royally. And it makes the entry level jobs a nightmare, where there is actually no job security as a result.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Good move. The concept of tenure is ridiculous.

I've worked 30+ years in industry, and I don't have tenure.

I earn the opportunity every day to come back the next day by delivering on what my employer expects of me. Same for the people who work for me.

Crazy concept, I know, lol.

---

I agree…but it's too late to change it now without hurting our ability to attract world class faculty. Tenure isn't a complete do what you want and can't get fired status. There are also ways to make their lives tenuous and drive them out

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Tree Hugger said:

---

Well, it would keep new profs from lying through the interview process and then waving the "tenure" flag (if they were given that status) and doing whatever they wanted, but then it would also keep quality profs from wanting to come here because they would be worried about job security.

---

The fact that the seniors of an entire industry don't have to worry about job security is ridiculous in the first place. Prof's are in high demand everywhere, the only way you aren't getting another job at another school is if you screwed something up royally. And it makes the entry level jobs a nightmare, where there is actually no job security as a result.

---

The idea that anybody has permanent job security isn't a sound standard. A public university should have some kind of guarantee that its spending is at least being used so that professors are continuously generating content in the relevant fields and educating the citizens. You have to work for a living, and I think we all generally accept that.

But the Academy is also meaningfully different than industry. Industry has a goal to generate profit. The Academy has a goal to advance knowledge. The public benefits from chipping away at commonly understood fields with marginal gains, and from iconoclasts who are totally against the grain discovering new things or changing the way we think. The public loses when it demands that the Academy conform to its orthodoxy, rather than accepting that part of the advancement of knowledge is allowing research, even highly unpopular research, to be conducted without the fear of retribution / unemployment.

An L of an Ag said:

---

As reasonable as this sounds, I guarantee it's going to be used to degrade the quality of college degrees AND defraud the public at the same time.

---

Actually, it is the best thing that could happen. While it may not bring results overnight, the only faculty that demand protection from this system are those that want to continue to do BS research without any real teaching responsibilities. This can lead to universities setting their own minimum teaching AND research standards, and letting the student and parent make decisions based on those standards.

It is a myth that higher rankings in journals in specific departments lead to a better overall education, and even if it did, undergraduate programs get little of this exposure as it relates to faculty. For example, in Economics (the field I graduated A&M in), A&M is currently ranked 38th (tied with Rice) nationally. That's slightly higher than where they were when I was there (it was 50-ish, I think; t.u. was lower then). How did A&M get ranked there? By college Presidents and department heads answering surveys. How do they know? Reputation. How do you get a good reputation? By having faculty that go to "good schools" and publish. But what are these "good schools" in the first place? The ones US News (and others) listed last year and 30 years ago.

Its all circular "logic." There are economics journals that rank departments a little more subjectively (pages published, etc.), but they'd faint if TAMU-Commerce (or worse, Prairie View A&M) came out any higher than, say, 200 in any of those rankings. If that happened, they'd ****-can the study or revamp it to show different results. Its like having a college football ratings system and find a 10-0 Bama team ranked way behind an 11-0 Ball State team. Even if there's mathematical logic to that system, that CAN NOT happen because "we all know" Bama is always better than Ball State regardless of what the facts say.

My point is that if you want higher education to change and actually mean something, a good place to start is to eliminate tenure. Worrying about the effects of that change is sort of like wanting to lose weight, starting an exercise program, and worrying that you'll lose your taste for hot fudge sundaes.

Kind of surprised by the number of Ags who think this is a good idea.

Good

If you're a quality hire, you're not worried about it in the first place.

Tenure is necessary for freedom of thought...especially contrarian and revolutionary ideas (say, theory of relativity for example).

This should be fought against, vehemently, by any proponent of free speech and thoughtful inquiry.

Given how bloody hard it is to become a professor, I have no doubt we will still be able to hire.

But the best professors would leave for tenure at other Universities. More importantly, their research dollars may follow them as well. Tons of amazing stuff is being done especially in the engineering and medicine departments. Even statistics and math.

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Tenure is necessary for freedom of thought...especially contrarian and revolutionary ideas (say, theory of relativity for example).

This should be fought against, vehemently, by any proponent of free speech and thoughtful inquiry.

---

Einstein was not a tenured professor when he published his theory of relativity.

Fenrir said:

---

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Tenure is necessary for freedom of thought...especially contrarian and revolutionary ideas (say, theory of relativity for example).

This should be fought against, vehemently, by any proponent of free speech and thoughtful inquiry.

---

Einstein was not a tenured professor when he published his theory of relativity.

---

It was still a revolutionary idea that fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe.

A sociological analog might be the revelation of evidence of Fox News' ignominy.

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Tenure is necessary for freedom of thought...especially contrarian and revolutionary ideas (say, theory of relativity for example).

This should be fought against, vehemently, by any proponent of free speech and thoughtful inquiry.

---

Lol. Free market goes brrrrrrrtttt

You can take your free idea protecting idiocy and leave. It's been abused. Every professor deserves to have the same job worries as the private sector. They aren't special.

So you're going to follow up your claim that revolutionary ideas require tenure by using a non-tenured Einstein's theory of special relativity with the claim that fox news is an analog for the development of the theory of special relativity?

This will not goes as planned by those in the TXCap.

Fenrir said:

---

So you're going to follow up your claim that revolutionary ideas require tenure by using a non-tenured Einstein's theory of special relativity with the claim that fox news is an analog for the development of the theory of special relativity?

---

Another case and point, dem professors and their sycophants can't demonstrate logical arguments any better than my dog.

For the decades during which I have been fully aware of the academic cancer that is tenure, I have wished for its elimination.

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Tenure is necessary for freedom of thought...especially contrarian and revolutionary ideas (say, theory of relativity for example).

This should be fought against, vehemently, by any proponent of free speech and thoughtful inquiry.

---

Einstein was not a tenured professor when he published his theory of relativity.

---

It was still a revolutionary idea that fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe.

A sociological analog might be the revelation of evidence of Fox News' ignominy.

---

Gets embarrassed, comes back with "something something Fox News LOL!!!" Got 'em again you brilliant sonofa*****!

Turn every professor into an adjunct, and every university in the state into a community college.

Rapier108 said:

---

The best thing that could happen to high education is to burn it down, grind it to dust, and find a way to start over to where it was actually worth something again.

At this point, don't care what happens to any of it.

---

This. The only issue on which I am a full on accelerationist is destroying the higher education racket.

We need complete reform of public universities and getting rid of tenure doesn't limit academic freedom at all.

Most profs aren't there to teach kids, they are there for research purposes. If we want to educate kids, a better way can come about.

Academia is one massive bubble and tenure limits their accountability and responsibility from the public who pay their salary. They can squawk about academic freedom as much as they want but they all largely think alike - leftist or left leaning.

Am I surprised that a lot of A&M grads on Texags want to end tenure at A&M? Not at all. I am reminded of the phrase "FAAFO."

Tenure is a good concept for professors. The purpose is to allow them freedom to pursue research and academic goals without fear of being terminated if their work doesn't pan out, or ends up being a dead end. However, it is based on an assumption that professors act in good faith towards an end that promotes free pursuit of knowledge and encourages dissension, discussion, and civil conduct. Many professors today view tenure as an immunity pass to do as they wish without fear of repercussion. This isn't new. Ward Churchill was one of the most public to abuse the protection of tenure and take advantage of it for bad intentions.

Short version:
The environment that makes tenure an important feature of academia no longer exists. Tenure no longer serves as protection to allow good faith and good intentions to occur, it now serves as protection to allow bad faith and bad intentions to go unchecked.

Tenure is bull**** and should be eliminated.

An L of an Ag said:

---

As reasonable as this sounds, I guarantee it's going to be used to degrade the quality of college degrees AND defraud the public at the same time.

---

DEI and wokeness has already degraded the quality of a college degree. Liberals have destroyed upper education.

Is academic freedom teaching wholeness in accounting class? Is academic freedom taking sides of either poli Al party in poli sci class?
Okay, keep you tenure, but your students need to take standardized test at end of semester and see if they learned anything.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Good move. The concept of tenure is ridiculous.

I've worked 30+ years in industry, and I don't have tenure.

I earn the opportunity every day to come back the next day by delivering on what my employer expects of me. Same for the people who work for me.

Crazy concept, I know, lol.

---

Well that is the problem. Conceptually, you don't want your intellectuals bound to delivering on what their employer demands. You want them bound to facts about reality.

Of course, we've strayed so far from that ideal that it's hard to defend any protections for academia. But the concept itself has some merit

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Tenure is necessary for freedom of thought...especially contrarian and revolutionary ideas (say, theory of relativity for example).

This should be fought against, vehemently, by any proponent of free speech and thoughtful inquiry.

---

IF freedom of thought were still allowed, then maybe.

A huge problem with higher education now is that freedom of thought is not allowed.