Thursday, June 02, 2011


In lots of state capitals now there's discussion about teacher tenure--does it help or hinder students, is it good or bad for teachers, does it protect bad teachers too much, etc. In other words, it's an interesting, timely subject. But you don't often hear about tenure problems in higher education:
There's a debate going on in higher education over tenure — the traditional practice of granting lifelong job security to professors after seven or so years of work.

Naomi Schaefer Riley, a former Wall Street Journal editor and writer, has written a book on the subject, entitled "The Faculty Lounges and Other Reasons Why You Won't Get the College Education You Paid For." In it, she explores the consequences of tenure, concluding: "Even in areas of study where one might not expect it, tenure is preventing institutions from living up to their highest potential. It is stifling the most innovative professors and preventing students from getting the education they deserve."

Here is more of what Riley had to say.
You might find it interesting.


Eric W. said...

I think what's worse is the amount of professors at research universities who view teaching undergrads as an annoying time sink, distracting them from getting any real work (ie their research) done. Why would you become a professor if you don't want to teach? There are plenty of R&D labs in industry who would be glad to have a PhD around.

Darren said...

Teaching is the bottom rung on the education industry ladder.

Another teacher... said...

There are just teachers/administrators that need to retire or do something else. Let us newbies get in there and really make a difference. lol.