 |
 |
I have been much exercised by this issue over many years, having worked in the UK, USA and Australia. The US tenure system is an unusual model, viewed globally.Britain, NZ and Australia have broadly similar approaches to academic employment - you are employed, usually on unionised rather then individually negotiated rates, but if things turn bad, you are gone. I took a view, in my paper on tenure in 2008, that the US system was exclusionary and unethical, committing the majority of faculty (ie the untenured and untenureable posts) to bad employment conditions. Tenure denies security to the majority, and is responsible for some unpleasant behaviour too. That was then. Now, I would have to modify that. Tenure has saved jobs [only those with tenure]. Since the financial crisis of 2008>> and the downturn in fortunes globally, the 'permanent contract' system in the other anglo countries has also been severely stressed, particularly in the UK [where I have been for a few months], as the humanities and social sciences lose favour and funding from the government. Arguably tenure would have saved a few posts. However I still think the 'non-US anglophone' permanent contract system has advantages - although empirical research would be needed on comparative stress levels and job requirements vs the 6 yrs of overwork and being polite to colleagues that happens in the US on the tenure track. It might be 'neoliberal' contracts in Europe and Australia but that doesn't mean faculty can't carve out a space in that system. With global financial downturns and university shortfalls, it has become a necessity to stand ready to defend your unit or your job. Justifying your existence in the university is not really too much to ask. This can be done in various ways, and threatened Departments need to have good information about their successes, income, etc. on hand. Just in case. Closure decisions are taken very quickly, as a recent campaign in England just demonstrated. Individuals too - it obviously helps to be able to say, in the middle of a giant financial recession, that you earn more in teaching and other income than you cost in salary. Symbolic value counts less than $ value in a recession, as U California academics are finding. Many find making this sort of calculation offensive, since it potentially reduces freedoms. However my friends and so many colleagues have been harassed in their jobs over the years or lost them [and let us be honest, human geography is rarely a core discipline to a university mission] - that I reckon it really is important to become more astute about $ as academics. Unfortunately teaching contributions are very hard to cost - but the lack of clarity over fee incomes can work both ways. A hint - scientists and engineers usually cost more than social scientists to employ! And, also, teaching income vastly outweighs research income in all the universities I have worked at, including the research intensive ones. S Dr. Simon Batterbury, Associate Professor, (on research leave) Dept. of Resource Management and Geography, University of Melbourne, 3010 VIC, Australia http://www.simonbatterbury.net/ Director, Office for Environmental Programs (on leave) http://www.environment.unimelb.edu.au -----Original Message----- From: Kevin M. DeJesus [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, 14 June 2011 11:20 PM Subject: Re: Hiring Announcement: 2 Positions, Political Studies-Auckland (Rublee) Dear Colleagues, I understand that there's been a question about my characterization of the employment period at the University of Auckland. We do have a system called "continuation," whereby a staff member hired on a permanent employment contract is assessed after 3 years of service. If the staff member is approved, they become "continued," which confirms their permanent employment contract. Once a staff member is continued,