- Joined
- Jul 6, 2009
- Messages
- 11,107
- Reaction score
- 21,301
- Points
- 135
Tenure is bad for a whole host of reasons. A new professor at a Research College (mid-sized state school to large state school), in their first six years, is expected to teach three courses per semester, have six articles published in pier-reviewed journals, and have one book not related to their dissertation.This is why tenure is even worse than unions.
The dilemma is the time it takes to do all of that research means that the three courses they teach are not up to par. It's even worse at elite research colleges (Harvard, Stanford, Yale, etc.) because they require three classes taught per semester, twelve articles, and two books not related to your dissertation.
The only schools that have mitigated the problem are small, liberal arts colleges, where to get tenure you still teach the three courses per semester, but are only required to have three published articles and one book that can be related to your dissertation. In exchange, student reviews are weighted more heavily.
The issue with this is, as a new professor, if you miss out on tenure you are screwed. So essentially, the tenure system results in professors who focus more on research than teaching. Tenure is nice for professors once you have it, but the process of getting it and certain benefits of having it are problematic. I wouldn't say it necessarily needs to be scrapped, however, it needs significant change.