Compared to untenured but tenure-track academic faculty (most of who will later get tenure), tenured professors put in less effort, are less focused on doing big-win projects, and are less willing to change locations, research sub-fields, or classes taught. They publish less, and change their minds less. But they are also more pompous in their speech; they complain more in public about outcomes for they and their local groups, and are more willing to advocate radical changes in
This (inflexible entrenched interests) is basically the thesis of Mancur Olson’s The Rise and Decline of Nations in the 1980s, and in a more generalized way was also the basic mechanism of civilizational decline in Carroll Quigley’s Evolution of Civilizations from the 1960s. I think you are spot on, other than that this mechanism doesn’t have to depend on a population decline. I think Quigley would argue that population decline is a symptom of a civilizational already decaying in other ways.
"We talk bigger about how others shouldn’t tolerate the many many injustices we see, but we aren’t going to do much about it except via complainy mobs" - or via blog posts like this one?
It occurs to me that your previous "Why crypto" post has a directly contradicting narrative to this post.
In "Why crypto," you say that people who succeeded at becoming rich, despite the odds, then have a desire to prove their success wasn't a fluke but was due to the value of their perspective, which leads them to invest in long-shot bet projects that help the community.
In "Our tenured civ," you say that people who succeeded at becoming tenured, despite the odds, then *don't* have a desire to use their newfound power and security to work on long-shot bet projects to advance the field.
Why the difference? Either people who get power and security against the odds then have a motive to dream and invest big, proving their initial success wasn't a fluke - or they don't.
The difference is in the stories each area tells re who succeeds and why. Academics tell stories of succeeding due to being smart, careful, and thorough, while crypto-folks tells stories of their contrarian insights into the nature of money and society.
Yes, we—including me—are getting old, and rich/safe/comfortable. But as for changing my mind: I have laboriously assembled this wonderful set of true opinions; why should I change anything? (Occasionally I do add minor pieces of information.)
Do you have sources and firm numbers for your claims about tenured professors? It's plausible that tenured professors would put in less effort, but it's also plausible that they would use their job security and authority to tackle the *big* questions of their field (and perhaps publish less frequently because big successes happen less often than incremental ones). That's what tenure is nominally for, anyway.
> For instance, in computer science (01/B1) the medians for an associate professor are 10 journal papers / 10 years, 9.15 citations / year, "contemporary H-index" 5.
> and for a full professor 12 papers / 10 years 14.8 citations / year "contemporary H-index" 6
This would partially contradict your claims. Although much of the effect is probably because researchers who ever get tenure are higher quality, as opposed to an individual's publishing trajectory.
> Including these faculty would severely bias downward pre-tenure publication rates, relative to post-tenure rates (especially if we were to include faculty who never receive tenure).
They excluded faculty who never receive tenure. Had they not done that, the relationship might be reversed, as the faculty who never receive tenure are also less productive. That could explain the difference between their paper and the Italy data I linked.
I can think of an explanation for their results that doesn't have tenure itself as a causal factor. They observed (A) publication rates decrease rapidly in the two years following tenure, and (B) publication rates gradually decline thereafter. (A) may be simply due to regression to the mean, which the authors mention as a possibility, and (B) may be due to declining cognitive function with age, and increasing family responsibilities, regardless of tenure.
This (inflexible entrenched interests) is basically the thesis of Mancur Olson’s The Rise and Decline of Nations in the 1980s, and in a more generalized way was also the basic mechanism of civilizational decline in Carroll Quigley’s Evolution of Civilizations from the 1960s. I think you are spot on, other than that this mechanism doesn’t have to depend on a population decline. I think Quigley would argue that population decline is a symptom of a civilizational already decaying in other ways.
typo: compliany -> complainy
I am also troubled by the word. Someone who is overly compliant? Or someone who complains too much? Cooptation .....
Watch out for black swans!
"We talk bigger about how others shouldn’t tolerate the many many injustices we see, but we aren’t going to do much about it except via complainy mobs" - or via blog posts like this one?
This article concludes "no" -->
https://www.colorado.edu/today/2017/10/17/does-faculty-productivity-really-decline-age-new-study-says-no
It occurs to me that your previous "Why crypto" post has a directly contradicting narrative to this post.
In "Why crypto," you say that people who succeeded at becoming rich, despite the odds, then have a desire to prove their success wasn't a fluke but was due to the value of their perspective, which leads them to invest in long-shot bet projects that help the community.
In "Our tenured civ," you say that people who succeeded at becoming tenured, despite the odds, then *don't* have a desire to use their newfound power and security to work on long-shot bet projects to advance the field.
Why the difference? Either people who get power and security against the odds then have a motive to dream and invest big, proving their initial success wasn't a fluke - or they don't.
The difference is in the stories each area tells re who succeeds and why. Academics tell stories of succeeding due to being smart, careful, and thorough, while crypto-folks tells stories of their contrarian insights into the nature of money and society.
Yes, we—including me—are getting old, and rich/safe/comfortable. But as for changing my mind: I have laboriously assembled this wonderful set of true opinions; why should I change anything? (Occasionally I do add minor pieces of information.)
Do you have sources and firm numbers for your claims about tenured professors? It's plausible that tenured professors would put in less effort, but it's also plausible that they would use their job security and authority to tackle the *big* questions of their field (and perhaps publish less frequently because big successes happen less often than incremental ones). That's what tenure is nominally for, anyway.
I live in this world, and also asked colleagues to confirm my impressions.
I found https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/68900/any-data-for-average-number-of-papers-per-year-at-different-career-stages
> For instance, in computer science (01/B1) the medians for an associate professor are 10 journal papers / 10 years, 9.15 citations / year, "contemporary H-index" 5.
> and for a full professor 12 papers / 10 years 14.8 citations / year "contemporary H-index" 6
This would partially contradict your claims. Although much of the effect is probably because researchers who ever get tenure are higher quality, as opposed to an individual's publishing trajectory.
https://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/engelberg/pub/portfolios/TENURE.pdf
Thanks!
> Including these faculty would severely bias downward pre-tenure publication rates, relative to post-tenure rates (especially if we were to include faculty who never receive tenure).
They excluded faculty who never receive tenure. Had they not done that, the relationship might be reversed, as the faculty who never receive tenure are also less productive. That could explain the difference between their paper and the Italy data I linked.
I can think of an explanation for their results that doesn't have tenure itself as a causal factor. They observed (A) publication rates decrease rapidly in the two years following tenure, and (B) publication rates gradually decline thereafter. (A) may be simply due to regression to the mean, which the authors mention as a possibility, and (B) may be due to declining cognitive function with age, and increasing family responsibilities, regardless of tenure.
This article is relevant (at least from the abstract); although I'm looking for one that more closely focuses on productivity pre- and post-tenure.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/is-tenure-justified-an-experimental-study-of-faculty-beliefs-about-tenure-promotion-and-academic-freedom/2F82B276EA5BB265D72A145163833F2B
It is interesting but after all is only an opinion poll, not objective data.
Sure, but statistics would mean more than possibly biased personal impressions. (All personal impressions are possibly biased, no slight on you).