你要以为取消tenure就可以淘汰不出活的老教授，那就错了。 取消tenure就是谁都没有科研的硬杠杠，淘汰的人更少。

只要没有丑闻，没有学生告你，工作就稳了。

shopping_tiger 发表于 2023-08-03 10:19

那不是更好，还反对啥？！

现在大学里搞科研的大多是留学来的中印 (尤其stem)，聪明的美国人都去华尔街了。

现在大学里搞科研的大多是留学来的中印 (尤其stem)，聪明的美国人都去华尔街了。

xiaohaot 发表于 2023-08-03 10:35

所以中印stem都不是聪明的脑袋是吗

最聪明的脑袋都留在academia对社会的发展进步是不是最优方式？如果废除tenure可以促进人才在学术界和工业界合理分配和流动，我看是一件好事。美帝现在的衰落很大程度是工业的衰落，学术界还是thrive的。

最聪明的脑袋都留在academia对社会的发展进步是不是最优方式？如果废除tenure可以促进人才在学术界和工业界合理分配和流动，我看是一件好事。美帝现在的衰落很大程度是工业的衰落，学术界还是thrive的。

yummy_agpr 发表于 2023-08-03 10:50

制造业的衰落。

软件还是火的很。但是软件包括chatgpt那些真是对生活帮助不大，大头都在圈钱

最聪明的脑袋都留在academia对社会的发展进步是不是最优方式？如果废除tenure可以促进人才在学术界和工业界合理分配和流动，我看是一件好事。美帝现在的衰落很大程度是工业的衰落，学术界还是thrive的。

yummy_agpr 发表于 2023-08-03 10:50

工业的衰落和成本，市场，工业化的生产方式有关，跟聪明的脑袋的关系也有，不是决定性的，因为聪明的人很多啊...

都废了，根本没有tenure这么一说了

浮云淡淡 发表于 2023-08-02 16:08

教授又不是不长腿，

换学校就是了

全国大学感谢德州

上周和在德州的同事开过会，闲聊时讨论过这个问题。他们说现在tenure目前还是受state law保护。不过也正因为如此，保留或者取消tenure已经成为legislature的决定，目前虽说安全，但未来很难讲。另外，如果取消的话，只对未来想要拿tenure的教授有影响，已经拿到的就管不着了。而且现在德州大学的问题不仅在于老师的tenureship，还有fredom of speech，前段时间关于A&M某位教授的被审查的新闻好像版上也提到过：https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/27/texas-tamu-faculty-disappointment/。

dallaswest 发表于 2023-08-03 10:24

对，现在就是这个事情闹起来的，

大部分人还是对tenure的问题不乐观

source? 我看到的6月的新闻说ban没pass state. 学校被要求定义tenure。

Faculty tenure was a hot-button topic during the 2023 legislative session. But what started out as a controversial proposal to ban tenure at all institutions of higher education eventually evolved into a tenure-affirming bill that standardizes the definition of tenure, imposes a framework for evaluation and dismissal, and requires all institutions, including community colleges, to adopt tenure-related policies by August 31, 2023.

Although a majority of Texas community colleges are not tenure-granting institutions – most phased it out over the last 35 years, opting instead to offer multi-year rolling contracts – tenure systems still exist at some Texas community colleges. Under Senate Bill 18, which the governor signed on June 14, all Texas community colleges must adopt a board policy addressing tenure and file the policy with the Coordinating Board of Higher Education, even if the policy simply reaffirms that the institution does not grant tenure.

Here are the key takeaways regarding SB 18 and tenure at community colleges:

• Faculty tenure is permitted but not required. While the original version of SB 18 would have banned institutions from granting tenure after September 2023, Senate Bill 18 gives local boards the authority and discretion to decide whether to confer tenure or whether to stick with term contracts.
• “Tenure” now has an official, standard definition. SB 18 defines “tenure” as “the entitlement of a faculty member of an institution of higher education to continue in the faculty member’s academic position unless dismissed by the institution for good cause,” in accordance with the institution’s policies and procedures.
• “Tenure,” when granted, does not extend to extra duties or stipends. Under SB 18, although tenure protects the faculty member’s continued employment, it “may not be construed to create a property interest in any attribute” beyond continuing employment.
• All community colleges must adopt a tenure policy—even if just to disavow tenure. The board-adopted tenure policies and procedures must address the granting of tenure, provide a mechanism for the dismissal of tenured faculty with due process, and establish a periodic performance evaluation process for all tenured faculty.
• Boards must obtain faculty input before adopting tenure policies and procedures. There is a short window to satisfy this requirement prior to September 1.
• Only the community college’s board may grant tenure, on the institution’s CEO’s recommendation.
• The law establishes a performance evaluation process. Community colleges must conduct a comprehensive performance evaluation for each tenured instructor at least once every six years, but no more than once every year. Under the new law, tenure may be revoked if, during the evaluation process, the institution finds incompetency, neglect of the faculty member’s duties, or other good cause for tenure revocation. Institutions must place any tenured faculty who receive an unsatisfactory rating on any portion of their comprehensive evaluation on a short-term development plan that includes performance benchmarks for returning to satisfactory performance.
• The law specifies dismissal standards. SB 18 allows termination for good cause but also lists specific grounds that will constitute good cause. These include, for example, “professional incompetence,” failure to successfully complete any post-tenure review professional development program, “conduct involving moral turpitude that adversely affects the institution or the faculty member’s performance of their duties,” violation of a law or institutional policy that “substantially relates to the performance of the faculty member’s duties,” unprofessional conduct, falsification of academic credentials, and a financial exigency. Before terminating a tenured faculty member, the institution must provide due process. Although SB 18 does not impose particular procedures, constitutional due process principles will apply. In the Fifth Circuit, a tenured professor facing termination is entitled to (1) be advised of the cause for the termination in sufficient detail so as to enable the faculty member to show any error that may exist; (2) be advised of the names and the nature of the testimony of the witnesses against the faculty member; (3) a meaningful opportunity to be heard within a reasonable time; and (4) a hearing before a tribunal that possesses some academic expertise and an apparent impartiality toward the charges. See Walsh v. Hodge, 975 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2020). When witness credibility is critical, the faculty member also may be entitled to confront his or her accuser. See id.
• The law recognizes the concept of the “summary dismissal.” SB 18 allows—but does not require—institutions to create a mechanism for “summary dismissal” of tenured faculty based on “serious misconduct,” which the institution must define in policy. The term “summary dismissal” is somewhat misleading because it suggests that a professor can be terminated on the spot, which is simply not the case under federal due process principles. Under the bill, a “summary dismissal” will require written notice of allegations (including an explanation of the evidence), a hearing before a “designated administrator” who renders a written decision, and an opportunity for an undefined “post-dismissal appeal.” Before adopting a “summary dismissal” procedure pursuant to SB18, boards should consult legal counsel to ensure that their procedures satisfy federal due process requirements.

autumncolor22 发表于 2023-08-02 16:22

看着挺合理

所以中印stem都不是聪明的脑袋是吗

tuzituzi 发表于 2023-08-03 10:38

中印stem当然是聪明的脑袋呀

真正牛的教授不会再乎tenure的。其他非顶流的教授跳就跳吧。大学的名气主要是靠头部的几个大牛撑出来。其他的无非是一个萝卜一个坑，换谁都差不多。

yummy_agpr 发表于 2023-08-03 07:45

不在乎和有的选然后选什么还是有区别的，真正的牛人可以选的其他学校太多了，为什么要留在德州非tenure。就跟买房送车库 同样的价格没人非要去选一个不送车库的。德州又不是一个非留之地

根据我的优先观察，sample size 学术界~20， 工业界~50

工资大概是工业界工作的30%-70% 之间吧，depending on location。

工作时间灵活，但是你总得花那么多时间，大概是工业界时间的120%-200%吧

自己做老板这个没说的，确实很爽

有人会做，但是基数少很多，数量上不去，质量也很难上去

tuzituzi 发表于 2023-08-03 09:03

工资肯定不如工业界

时间灵活也就是灵活，总时间多多了，其实恨不得24/7

Gatech已经走了不少了吧。

warrenfly 发表于 2023-08-03 09:59

肯定不少啊 但是faculty找工作不容易 要慢慢走

佛州前阵子说要学德州废除，消息刚出来 我们几个师兄就开始积极找工作了

美国制度的特点（你说是优点也好缺点也好特点也好）之一就是州权相对独立。

这个明摆着改不了。像堕胎这事就是这样（我不是说堕胎这事一定就会是或者该是现在的状态了，只是说现状显然是因为州权相对独立造成的）。

那么红的州毕竟不是那么多，而且人家州非要闹，咱还能不让人家闹不成？毕竟这是人家州人民的选择啊。。。如果人家人民都这么想了，你还非要去教育他们说你们想的不对？这有点强人所难吧。。。

做人，轻松点儿好，犯不着那么大的社会责任感。。。

当然，更直接的原因是我自己不会直接受这类政策的影响 ：-）

Centauri 发表于 2023-08-03 10:17

说的有道理

有人问那为什么还有人去tx、fl当faculty？事情是有多面性的，看自己在乎什么。tx校长的pay很不错，至少在public大学里是前面的。fl你们也许鄙视，但最近这些年给higher ed的resource是非常足够，uf排名往上飞速发展不是光靠人来达到的。对于很多在乎资源同时并没有打算在一个地方养老一辈子的人，他们做自己的选择而已。

现在大学里搞科研的大多是留学来的中印 (尤其stem)，聪明的美国人都去华尔街了。

xiaohaot 发表于 2023-08-03 10:35

去华尔街的白男也未必聪明

华尔街有一堆位子都是靠关系

Hedge fund比较硬核 这个pool里面移民很多

教授又不是不长腿，

换学校就是了

全国大学感谢德州

Silverwing 发表于 2023-08-03 11:15

这景象不就是德州年轻人天下

老棒菜趴蓝州养老

到底是谁的好处？

显然是德州吧

会不会发现，废了tenure,学校的科研和教学反而上了一个台阶，教授不敢躺平了，年轻的教授机会也多了。要这样的话就尴尬了。

yummy_agpr 发表于 2023-08-03 07:14

学校科研上了一个台阶

那必然是学校教授科研上了一个台阶 大楼又不produce

既然教授科研上了一个台阶 又没有tenure

那为什么不走呢？除非tx给比同类学校更多的钱