« Tabarrok in NYC | Main | Do insiders have an advantage getting tenure? »
Did Norman Finkelstein deserve tenure?
Dan Drezner has an excellent post, with which I largely agree. I haven't read the guy's work (I doubt if I would like it), but my smell test suggests the following. Many non-top universities tenure a large group of faculty members, none of whom really deserve it. They are insiders, they have friends in the department, the replacements wouldn't really be better, and so the tenure sticks. It is quite easy to argue ex post that a "no" vote is warranted in most of these cases. But if Finkelstein hadn't done controversial work, he in fact would have received tenure along with many other non-deserving candidates. He didn't, and in that sense I also suspect the process was unfair.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 12, 2007 at 03:59 PM in Education | Permalink
Comments
Actually, Finkelstein has six books out, although one is co-authored.
Yes, this "collegiality" thing stinks. It is a ruse when there are no
solid grounds for denying tenure otherwise, although I know of a couple
of cases where people were denied tenure by administrators who did not
like them because their service activities were deemed to be of a "low
quality."
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Jun 12, 2007 4:24:56 PM
Norman is the rare type of academic who tenure was designed for. its kind of ironic he was denied it.
But I would disagree with Tyler's cynical assessment of tenure at lower ranked institutions. From what I've observed, most department heads have great pride in their department and demand objective output from faculty members.
Posted by: thehova at Jun 12, 2007 5:16:08 PM
"...none of whom really deserve it...."
Just curious, based on what standard do you make that statement?
If you are implying that only "superstars" can get tenure, then almost no one would have tenure.
Huh?
Posted by: save_the_rustbelt at Jun 12, 2007 6:15:07 PM
Make that
....should get tenure...
Posted by: save_the_rustbelt at Jun 12, 2007 6:15:43 PM
Ah! The famous cowen smell test. OK
If Finkelstein is so good, can you sniff around and tell us why he didn't get a non-adjunct position until 10 years after getting his PhD? Obviously there wasn't anyone breaking down his door. Unless, for some reason, DePaul "owed him" for keeping him around for six years, I can't get very worked up about it.
Posted by: Barry at Jun 12, 2007 6:53:08 PM
Hi Tyler,
You say that most universities tenure many people who don't deserve it even though (among other things) "the replacements wouldn't really be better." I'm curious what you mean here. If the tenured folks really are the best of the options, or at least among the best, then in what sense don't they deserve it? Are you just complaining about the low quality of tenured professors at non-elite universities in general? Or are you suggesting that universities would be better off with fewer tenure positions and more rotating spots? Or is it something else?
Posted by: Ali at Jun 12, 2007 8:19:05 PM
How about getting rid of tenure? It doesn't exist in business and the professions. Yes, a lawyer or accountant can make partner, but not by the seventh year; and even when they become a partner, they can be fired (or demoted) for doing something less egregious than having illicit relations with the dean's daughter.
If you're a .193 hitter, you go back to the minors. If your sales production plumets, you can easily be shown the door. If you're a trial lawyer and you lose all your cases, you might have trouble obtaining clients. Etc.
Columbia had a professor a few years ago who refused a tenure track position, opting instead for a deal that compensated him for his productivity, not for the tensile strenth of the iron in his butt.
Higher education would improve if a productivity model of compensation replaced the tenure model.
Posted by: Bill Stepp at Jun 12, 2007 9:23:55 PM
How is there a post about Finkelstein not receiving tenure and 8 comments without single mention that this is the result of the crusade (ha!) of Crazed Plagiarist / Zionist Alan Dershowitz???
Posted by: alec at Jun 12, 2007 10:19:20 PM
"...none of whom really deserve it...."
I found that odd too. Most professors make a serious financial sacrifice for academia.
Lets, like Tyler, make the assumption that most professors at lower ranked schools are not productive. Tenure goes to those with the ability to suck up the most. regardless, giving tenure to professors who've stayed at an institution for a long period of time is not a terrible thing. god, don't public schools give out tenure to teachers after 2 or 3.
Posted by: thehova at Jun 12, 2007 10:27:00 PM
Thinking of tenure and economics recently I informally asked some of the engineers I work with around my office how much of their salary would they give up in exchange for the guarantee that they could not be fired or laid off. I heard amounts ranging from 20% to as high as 50%. Not sure if the last guy was serious.
Posted by: john g at Jun 12, 2007 10:34:38 PM
Bill Stepp,
Yes, this tenure bit has been argued here before. So, do you really want administrators
to be able to arbitrarily fire controversial professors at the request of some politically
pissed off donor?
Are you willing to pay the much higher tuitions for kids going to college to compensate
faculty for the loss of job security, assuming that you wish to maintain approximately
equally qualified faculty?
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Jun 12, 2007 10:48:03 PM
I agree with the suggestion to eliminate tenure.
Wouldn't a free market proponent concur?
Posted by: fustercluck at Jun 12, 2007 10:49:27 PM
Am an economist that has worked at two non-top (far from top in anything) and currently at a top rate
university. Casual empiricism has shown that the obsession with and arbitrariness of tenure vary
inversely with the quality of the university and the marketability of your field. Political Scientists
at second and third tier universities are obsessed with tenure--as you would expect they would. Economists
in a worse case scenario have several options outside of academe. At top schools you get bounced so
what--you get a gig at a second tier place near a beach. big issue, is the industry structure of
universities. Top places where new ideas are generated and faculty teach 2/2 loads and ofter 1/1--here
you may argue that tenure protects people doing cutting edge research. Other places really focus
on teaching and some applied research--tenure there is just rent seeking.
Posted by: Robert C at Jun 12, 2007 11:09:19 PM
Many non-top universities tenure a large group of faculty members, none of whom really deserve it.
Um, wow. I hope this view is clear to anyone at a non-top department thinking about external referees for their tenure case. . .
Posted by: RSA at Jun 12, 2007 11:59:38 PM
Tenure-track positions come with implicit contracts: if you do X, we will give you tenure. Therefore the question should be whether De Paul did or did not uphold their agreement, not whether he should have gotten tenure at some completely imaginary factory-standard university.
I also don't know why people complain about tenure. It is simply a contract between the university and the professor, albeit a rather long one. Are libertarians now opposed to private parties making contracts?
Posted by: James at Jun 13, 2007 6:39:49 AM
Your senior colleagues at GM must love you Tyler.
Posted by: jamesd at Jun 13, 2007 6:52:17 AM
To Barkley, James et al.,
As a libertarian, I don't stop with "Jail to the chief." I also say abolish the public schools, including taxpayer-financed colleges.
Barkley assumes politically pissed off donors would not donate. Maybe, maybe not. But so what?
In a libertarian world (i.e., one without politics), what does it take to be politically pissed off?
As for James's point about tenure being a contract, I'm not sure. I'd like to know more about its origins.
I also don't believe that state-financed organizations have a right to enter into contracts, at least not ones that libertarians can't bust by saying get your hands off that stolen loot.
Yes, there can be long-term contracts that might have some characteristics of tenure. But the bottom line is that in the real world of business and the professions, no one has tenure and everyone, no matter how long in the saddle, has to produce at some minimum level.
I don't think tenure would exist in a world without publicly-financed schools.
Posted by: Bill Stepp at Jun 13, 2007 7:20:05 AM
"I agree with the suggestion to eliminate tenure.
Wouldn't a free market proponent concur?"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Professors have no real union and very little market power. In light of that what makes you think that tenure is anything more than an equilibrium outcome. It is not being imposed by any government regulator or being held in place by a unions threats. I always laugh when I hear conservative and libertarians complaining about tenure. Since tenure is not enforced by the government I assume they want the government to step in and abolish a private contract.
Posted by: GoodneesOfFit at Jun 13, 2007 8:24:33 AM
Professors have no real union and very little market power. In light of that what makes you think that tenure is anything more than an equilibrium outcome. It is not being imposed by any government regulator or being held in place by a unions threats. I always laugh when I hear conservative and libertarians complaining about tenure. Since tenure is not enforced by the government I assume they want the government to step in and abolish a private contract.
I don't belong to a union, nor do I have much market power. Please tell me what "market power" even means in this context.
Equilibrium against what, exactly? Other professors?
And no, I don't want the government to be part of the equation - this isn't a "let's ban tenure" argument, but more of a "why should universities have this system in the first place?"
I found that odd too. Most professors make a serious financial sacrifice for academia.
People who work in the non-profit world, especially at lower than Executive Director level, make a far greater financial sacrifice and there is no model for tenure in the NP world.
Posted by: fustercluck at Jun 13, 2007 10:13:41 AM
Bill S.
The issue here is very much political pressure. The charge in this particular
case is that Finkelstein is getting the axe because of outside pressure. Failure
to get tenure means he is getting fired. Do you think this is just hunky dory?
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Jun 13, 2007 10:18:27 AM
FC said:
"And no, I don't want the government to be part of the equation - this isn't a "let's ban tenure" argument, but more of a 'why should universities have this system in the first place?'"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What you said is: "I agree with the suggestion to eliminate tenure."
Tenure is part of a private contract voluntarily entered into between a firm and a worker. Apparently both parties find contracts with tenure better than other contacts for various reasons. How would you eliminate tenure without government intervention?
What you are proposing is a price control on private contracts in a more or less competitive market.
Posted by: GoodneesOfFit at Jun 13, 2007 10:28:20 AM
I guess we are playing a game of semantics. What I mean is that: were I in a position to be able to affect the contract - which I agree I am not, I am presupposing that I am in this case a univeristy Dean or whoever does create these contracts - I would take tenure off the table.
Posted by: fustercluck at Jun 13, 2007 11:17:53 AM
I guess we are playing a game of semantics. What I mean is that: were I in a position to be able to affect the contract - which I agree I am not, I am presupposing that I am in this case a univeristy Dean or whoever does create these contracts - I would take tenure off the table.
Posted by: fustercluck at Jun 13, 2007 11:17:53 AM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt you would. You have to pay the wage (tenure is part of that) the market demands, or the quality of your department would suffer.
You sound like a leftest who calls for caps on CEO wages and then when pressed on it says "I am not saying there should be a law, I am just saying if I was on the board of a company I would cap the CEO salary of my company".
Posted by: GoodneesOfFit at Jun 13, 2007 1:24:17 PM
You sound like a leftest who calls for caps on CEO wages and then when pressed on it says "I am not saying there should be a law, I am just saying if I was on the board of a company I would cap the CEO salary of my company".
That's exactly right - and what is wrong with that stance? The change has to come from within, not from without. Just because I believe in something doesn't mean that I expect the government to dictate it. Is that you how would promote changes - through government intervention? I think you're on the wrong message board.
I doubt you would. You have to pay the wage (tenure is part of that) the market demands, or the quality of your department would suffer.
If I'm the Dean of Harvard, am I really sweating a drop in professorial quality?
People like you probably said the same thing when pensions and free health insurance were de rigueur in the private sector. "Oh no - you can't cut retirement benefits and expect people to contribute to their own health insurance costs - nobody will ever work here!" Well, now it's pretty standard that these perks are not part of the compensation package.
I'd eliminate tenure and others would follow.
Posted by: fustercluck at Jun 13, 2007 2:18:24 PM
FC:
"I'd eliminate tenure and others would follow."
------------------------------------------------
No they wouldn't.
They now have an advantage over you. You have chosen to pay below market wages. Top schools like Harvard worry a lot about a drop in quality often paying a premium (not a discounted wage as you propose) to retain top professors.
This is pretty basic supply and demand competitive market stuff. A firm cannot unilaterally pay less than the market wage and expect to attract the same quality of labor.
I am more interested in why so many conservatives and libertarians have such a knee jerk negative reaction to this particular form of compensation.
Posted by: GoodneesOfFit at Jun 13, 2007 2:37:42 PM
