Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 326 posts

Re: Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate

#311

Post by arghnoname »

robwwilliams wrote: post #186
nextos wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note some good US universities pay entry-level FAANG salaries to assistant professors. If you can negotiate a low teaching load, it might be OK in some cases. Nonetheless, I agree with what you say. I'd add there is a ton of nasty politics, bullying, etc. which might be hard to avoid while you are on tenure track chasing tenure.

I doubt that. What does UCLA pay entering STEM AI faculty? FAANG salaries for MS in CS at or above $300k. Starting salary in genomics, stats, ML and AI in a very well funded medical college with PhD and 4-year postdoc is less than half that.

FAANG don't typically pay someone with just a masters in CS $300K fresh out of school, perhaps excluding someone in a very in demand niche. I didn't get that from my offers and I had a PhD from a good school. Maybe I just suck, but I compared notes with my peers, so we must all suck.

From what my friends got in academia and industry, I'd say at entry-level, professors at good schools are competitive with FAANG salaries, particularly when the cost of living is lower where the university is located. The raises and promos lead industry people to outpace them though because of the lower ceiling in academia.

Re: Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate

#312

Post by ModernMech »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #297
ModernMech wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t the incentive be to stay relevant?

Always, ask what is the economics of things. Full time teaching faculty teach 3 courses every semester, for it to make financial sense to pay them for full time salaried role. Trying to teach a course well takes at least 12-15 hours of work every week, if not more. That's already more than 40 hours per week. Add a few hours of service requirements to this as well. Where is the time or the mental energy to learn new s…

As a full time teaching professor with a 3/3-course load, I can say there’s definitely time — the summer, when I’m off from the beginning of May to the end of August; and the winter, when I’m off from the beginning of December to the end of January.

Re: Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate

#313

Post by ModernMech »

arghnoname wrote: post #308
caddemon wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with this as a state policy, but I don't know if it is as disastrous for UT as Aaronson makes it out to be. The academic job market is an absolute fucking bloodbath. Plenty of very qualified up and coming researchers struggle to get TT positions at major research universities. If they stay in academia, many postdoc for an absurdly long time or settle for career stagnating instructor positions (even thou…

I got a PhD in computer science and considered going into academia, though I ultimately decided against it because there is only so much scratching and clawing that I am willing to do. I was a decent researcher and to be honest, not having tenure at an good institution at all (as opposed to two tier TT and non-TT jobs) would have been kind of a plus. I probably would have gotten tenure, but I got so damned sick of ch…

Agreed, I explicitly decided on a non-TT role because the tenure carrot isn’t juicy enough anymore. The non-TT role where you get a salary good enough for 12 months but you only have to work 9 just can’t be beat.

Re: Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate

#314

Post by ModernMech »

beambot wrote: post #304
nextos wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to levels.fyi, a typical entry-level FAANG job (L3 SWE at Google) pays $140k base salary. An assistant prof. position at UCSD I was looking into a few weeks ago was paying $115-145k to identical roles in the department. I know Google has some other benefits, like stock and bonus. Plus, compensation will grow more rapidly. And there are tons of high-paying SWE jobs, whereas good academic positions are scarce…

Google L3 SWE total comp is $193k https://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Google,Salesforce&track=Soft... Base salary is the wrong comparison. As you move up to higher levels and get stacking equity grants, the liquid stock vesting routinely becomes >50% of total comp at FAANG -- i.e. you have to look at total comp. It's not even close to comparable. Also worth noting: as a PhD with assistant prof levels of experience, you'd…

But don’t you have to live in the Bay Area? Or does Google pay those L5 salaries for remote? Because $365k is more like $179-$200k where I live. And you have to work 12 months of the year, no?

Re: Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate

#315

Post by giantg2 »

Alupis wrote: post #238
giantg2 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that the high numbers are often because people are ill informed or even irresponsible about the loan, I don't think dragging out schooling is the best answer either, especially if you have higher earning power once you get a degree. Also keep in mind the current system incentives - aid is inversely correlated with income and balances are forgiven in some cases. Why work harder if it means getting a wors…

In my experience, most recent college graduates are effectively useless anyway. I say that as a once-recent graduate. It's often thought, incorrectly, that university teaches you how to do a certain job. People go to university to learn how to become an X. University isn't supposed to teach you how to do a job... it's supposed to teach you how to think critically. Along the way you learn, in varying depth, knowledge…

The issues you describe could be addressed in other ways. Your claim about college teaching critical thinking is misguided. While it's true that is the theoretical goal, in practice they're mostly just cranking out degrees and requiring a lot of memorization.

"maybe it should take 6-8 years after all."

This has multiple negative economic effects, such as delaying family and decreasing g retirement savings compounding.

"The quality of an average graduate would be immense, and future earning abilities would be equally increased."

I highly doubt this. Without the qualifications to work in their field, they would likely have limited benefit. If they are able to work in their field without the knowledge gained in college, then we should do away with that requirement and move to apprenticeships.

Re: Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate

#317

Post by uberman »

ModernMech wrote: post #275
uberman wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware that most non tenured positions require you to reapply every year for your job? Every 3 years if you are lucky. This in not a simple annual review like a normal job, this is you are fired at the end of your 1 year contract and now let's talk about the possibility of a new one year contract. This in my opinion is really what tenure is about, getting out of the yearly firing that adjuncts and lecturers fa…

Typical contracts are 3-5 years, which is more job security than you'll find at most any job, which are at-will in America (meaning you can be fired at any time for any reason). With the layoffs in the tech sector now in the 100's of thousands, it's nice to know I have a guaranteed position for the next 2 years.

Perhaps at your institution, but where I consult it is much harder to fire an "at will" administrator than it is to fire an adjunct.

Even one who took a month of unannounced vacation out of the country then retroactively declared it as work from home when it turned out they had not even accrued the time they took. They were also only approved for one day a week work from home.

My point being at least where I work it is next to impossible to fire a full time staffer who is not attached to soft money. An adjunct though is essentially disposable once a year. Part time professors, at the end of any semester.

Re: Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate

#318

Post by ModernMech »

uberman wrote: post #317
ModernMech wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typical contracts are 3-5 years, which is more job security than you'll find at most any job, which are at-will in America (meaning you can be fired at any time for any reason). With the layoffs in the tech sector now in the 100's of thousands, it's nice to know I have a guaranteed position for the next 2 years.

Perhaps at your institution, but where I consult it is much harder to fire an "at will" administrator than it is to fire an adjunct. Even one who took a month of unannounced vacation out of the country then retroactively declared it as work from home when it turned out they had not even accrued the time they took. They were also only approved for one day a week work from home. My point being at least where I work it…

> Where I consult it is much harder to fire an "at will" administrator than it is to fire an adjunct.

Of course, this makes perfect sense, due to the role adjuncts fill in the campus community. They are and always have been temporary labor that are used to fill small or short-term roles. For example, they may serve as a project manager on a capstone, a lecturer for a section, or a leader for a recitation. They are not full time faculty and are not expected to fill the role of a full time faculty member. At best they will work for maybe 14 weeks, maybe 6-8 hours a week for one course.

Why shouldn't an adjunct be harder to fire than an administrator, who has a full-time, 40 hour per week, year-round role at the university?

The problem you are alluding to is when a university builds a faculty out of adjuncts, which is just bad practice, and indicative of a bad university.

Re: Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate

#319

Post by stainablesteel »

tombert wrote: post #239
stainablesteel wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you should definitely move to a state that suits your political background, its fair to say you might not like florida. but that "don't say gay bill" is really just a "don't teach sex ed til 4th grade" bill. i'm understanding of people who don't like it nonetheless but there's other place for you to go, there's plenty of blue states and big cities that support left-wing agendas over right-wing ones, just go there ins…

I think this is a pretty stupid argument; I think this is an idiotic law, and I would even if I did agree with the bizarre LGBT grooming conspiracies. It’s poorly worded, likely to be abused, and also not just K-3 anymore like people keep incorrectly asserting. Even if I did think that there was some grooming conspiracy, I wouldn’t want to teach in Florida because I don’t want to be sued by some parent who has a rela…

that's not exactly steel manning what i said, a lot of the modern lgbt craze is crossing religious boundaries, i don't want my kids to be taught anyone else's religion, i'm supposed to have this right granted to me and my kids under law

people who like what's going on in florida will move to florida, its a win-win

Re: Ban on Tenure for New Faculty Hires Passes Texas Senate

#320

Post by themitigating »

wyager wrote: post #52
themitigating wrote: post #3

This is the republicans punishing groups of people they don't like.

We've been in a Schmittian friend/enemy political environment for decades now. We've long since abandoned politics-as-societal-optimization-mechanism; it's now just competition for resources. The republicans were just slow to get with the program and are now playing catch-up.

This comment is like a level below whataboutism. You're basically saying "the other side also did something similar" but you didn't provide examples
Post reply on HN