Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oklahoma Update


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Kenneth Sloan on May 03, 2003 at 18:13:17:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oklahoma Update posted by Mary Ann on May 02, 2003 at 09:52:07:

Yes, tenure is the worst possible system - except for the alternative.

I'm sorry your friend had a bad experience. To tell you the truth, it sounds to me as if the wrong decision was made. Most of the people I know who have tenure do *more* work after receiving tenure than they did before - the difference is that there is more freedom to work on things which are more "problematic" (higher risk).

Universities have a vested interest in maintaining a faculty that is not afraid of taking chances - and not afraid of taking controversial positions. The professoriat is paid to push the envelope and challenge the status quo. The only way to do this (as far as I can tell) is to give job security. The flip side of this is that the university cannot afford to give job security to people who can't hack it. So, there's a probationary period. (sound familiar to orchestral players?)

For some people, the tenure process is where they find out that they aren't interested (or not capable) of doing the kind of things that *that* University, or *that* department are interested in. The process of finding this out can be painful.

There are, of course, abuses. When a case is borderline, candidates can be pushed to their limits. Those who make it to the other side sometimes (often, alas) decide to coast (or, worse, take out their frustrations on the poor souls still under the gun).

But, in my experience (which is considerable, on *both* sides of the table) the system does work. And, in my opinion, the system is absolutely necessary, both for Universities and for major orchestras.


Follow Ups: