Compounding the various threats facing universities is the rigid practice of tenure. Many schools are under pressure to manage expenses and reallocate resources in response to growing skepticism about the value and usefulness of products, but long-gone presidents, provosts, and trustees are They are handcuffed by the promise of lifetime employment made to many faculty members. . And they’re even more gripped by the fear that being freed from this archaic system will cause them even worse headaches than the ones it alleviates.
Many of the practices in higher education still resemble those of medieval Oxford, leading some to believe that tenure and the literally lifelong job security it provides has a much longer history than it actually does. In fact, tenure as we know it was his 20th century American invention, and initially its awarding was tightly controlled by presidents and boards of directors. But during the booming decades of the second half of this century, tenure appointments proliferated and, more problematically, became increasingly the province of the departments themselves.
Standard practice today is for a series of committees to make judgments on tenure-track applicants and pass recommendations upstream for rubber stamping by the provost and ultimately the provost and board of governors. .
It’s rare to hear of a recommendation being rejected after going through this process. When New College of Florida’s new board and president opposed several tenure grants last spring, their position was quickly denounced by the president of the statewide faculty union. That’s because “everyone qualified to make the decision approved the candidate.”
If you pick up a business magazine or management how-to book, you’ll find words like “agile” and “act quickly” on almost every page. The ability to pivot and change priorities in response to consumer preferences or competitor actions often makes a critical difference in market success. It is hard to think of a company that is less “agile” than modern American universities.
Or limit flexibility more than tenure, which Mark C. Taylor, a professor at Columbia University and author of The Campus Crisis, calls āthe single most important factor inhibiting change in higher education.ā It is a practice designed to A quick way to encourage university boards to be sober is to suggest that they calculate the net present value of each tenure decision they routinely approve. For some schools, that number could reach millions of dollars, and it could be much more than that, given that some teachers aren’t fired because they’re undercut. The eerie old saying “We take it one funeral at a time” comes to mind.
Tenure is not the only anchor higher education is dragging. Decades of easy money and, until recently, little oversight of the quality of student learning have fostered a culture of complacency and disregard for criticism that can only be described as reactionary. But even leaders who acknowledge the need for change are reluctant to take the actions that will bring about the most direct change.
In my experience, approximately two-thirds of the cost structure of a typical American university is devoted to personnel costs, and even though the number of administrators has mushroomed and many campuses are overwhelmed, Teachers account for the largest portion of personnel costs. Even if the student population still justifies the current total number of teachers, changing academic preferences may mean schools have too few teachers for high-demand areas, or tenure in departments with little student interest. It often means there are too many incumbents. Economists sometimes refer to it as “trapped value.” Here, the trap is clear, although the value is often questionable.
Only about half of current presidents support the practice of tenure, but few schools are willing to let it go for fear of faculty outcry or giving a hiring advantage to competitors. Although the department has been quietly crab-walking away from this practice, generally through attrition and by gradually moving to contingent faculty, the prevalence of tenure remains at an average annual rate of less than 0.5 percent of all faculty. is decreasing. Of course, this amounts to warp speed in American higher education.
Careful management and cost control can balance tenure and solvency. By minimizing non-essential amenities, avoiding gold plating on equipment, prioritizing academic and administrative positions, and controlling other simple cost issues, Purdue University has lowered tuition and fees since 2012. while maintaining one of the highest tenure/tenure ratios in the nation. Track from faculty to students. But for too long, many schools took the path of least resistance and simply raised tuition each year. Now the resistance has arrived and too many of their costs are off-limits.
So the system continues to reel, beset by declining enrollment, plummeting public trust, and self-abasing violations of the very freedom of inquiry and perspective that tenure was created to protect. But unless state governments mandate repeal or dramatic reform, as some states are considering, we can’t expect this restraint to suddenly be lifted. Mr. President and Directors, All Blue Eyes sings to you: [tenure] trap. “