Why Is The Academic Job Market So Weird?
[Related: Dualization] Bret Devereaux writes here about the oddities of the academic job market. His piece is comprehensive, and you should read it, but short version: professors are split into tenure-track (30%, good pay and benefits) and adjunct (50%, bad pay and benefits). Another 20% are “teaching-track”, somewhere in between. Everyone wants a tenure-track job. But colleges hiring new tenure-track faculty prefer newly-minted PhDs to even veteran teaching-trackers or adjuncts. And even if they do hire a veteran teaching-tracker or adjunct, it’s practically never one of their own. If a teaching-tracker or adjunct makes a breakthrough, they apply for a tenure-track job somewhere else. Devereaux describes this as “a hiring system where experience manifestly hurts applicants” and displays this graph: He focuses on the moral question: is this good (no), and how can it be stopped (activism). I appreciate his commentary but I found myself wondering about the economic question: why did the system end up like this? Remember, “greed” isn’t an answer. Greed can explain why management pays some people low salaries, but not why it pays other people high salaries. What process carves off 30% of professors to get good pay and benefits, but passes over the rest? Also, given that some people will get good salaries, why shouldn’t it be the more experienced people? Maybe this is all so obvious to Devereaux that he didn’t feel it needed explaining, but it’s not obvious to me. And I can’t find any existing discussion, so I’ll make a guess to start the conversation, and people who know more can tell me if I’m wrong. Colleges want two things from their professors. First, they need them to teach classes. Second, they need them to do good research, raise the college’s reputation, and look prestigious. Colleges want to pretend to students that the same people are doing both these jobs, because students like the idea of being taught by prestigious thought leaders. But they don’t want to actually have the same people do both jobs, because the most valuable use of prestigious thought leaders’ time is doing research or promoting their ideas. Every hour Einstein’s in the classroom is an hour he’s not in the lab discovering new theories that will rain honors down upon himself and his institution. And there’s no guarantee Einstein is even a good teacher. Solution: hire for two different positions, but give them the same job title to make things maximally confusing for students. Have them occasionally do each others’ jobs, so students get even more confused. You very conspicuously hire Einstein, you hold out the carrot of being taught by Einstein, but Einstein actually just teaches one 400-level seminar a year, and every other class is taught by the cheapest person able to teach at all. The cheapest person able to teach at all is very cheap. The status draw of academia ensures qualified people will keep barrelling into it even if the expected pay and conditions are poor. So there will be a glut of qualified instructors, and colleges can hire them for peanuts. But Einstein is expensive. Unlike in teaching, where colleges just want to meet the bar of “able to do this at all”, in research colleges want to beat other colleges to hire the most prestigious people. That means if you’re the top PhD in your field, colleges will enter a bidding war to get you. And once someone has you, so on to the second-best PhD, etc. So here demand exceeds supply and salaries stay high. This could explain the tenure/adjunct distinction. Adjuncts are selling their ability to teach, tenured professors are selling their prestige, and colleges have decided they only need a certain amount of prestige before they stop caring and fill the other teaching positions with warm bodies. But they obscure all of this with similar job titles to trick students into thinking they’ll get taught by prestigious people. But then why do they only hire inexperienced people? Why only people from outside their own institution? Here I’m even more confused, but a few guesses: Maybe colleges really do want “superstars”, not just moderately good researchers. The value of the #1 brightest new PhD is that she has a 5% chance of becoming a future superstar; the value of the #100 brightest new PhD is that she has a 1% chance of becoming a future superstar. Once you’ve been around for five years, colleges can see your track record, satisfy themselves you’re not the next Einstein, and lose interest. Maybe colleges are very good at predicting who will become prestigious in the future, and it’s rare for a dark horse to rise through the ranks. Maybe if some adjunct professor did become prestigious later on, they would hire them to tenure track, but in fact this never happens. This could be because hiring committees are always right and never miss a potential future star. Or it could be a vicious cycle - if hiring committees dismiss you, then grantmakers and journal editors will also dismiss you, and you won’t have the resources you need to do great work. In terms of outside their own institution, I wonder if it’s something like this: suppose you’re an adjunct hired for a six month term. You go to the college. You make friends with the department. You invite them to your house for dinner. Your kids get to know their kids. Then a tenure-track opening comes up and you apply. Seems like it would be an emotionally fraught situation for the department to turn you down. Maybe, in order to avoid these kinds of situations, they develop a reputation for always turning down the adjuncts, so that the question never even comes up and you don’t feel aggrieved at them in particular. Here’s another question that confuses me even more: Why don’t colleges hire everyone in some low-commitment capacity, maybe as adjuncts, wait to see who becomes superstars, then poach them? From a college’s point of view, the downside to this strategy is that some other college can hire a promising new PhD for more money, then try to keep them out of loyalty and inertia after they reach superstardom. But are superstars really that loyal and inert? Why? My brother was a professor on the tenure track. When he wanted to move, his new college offered to start him on the same part of the tenure track as his last institution. Seems like a good start. But why aren’t colleges more like un-salary-capped sports teams, trying to outbid one another for their rivals’ superstars? You're currently a free subscriber to Astral Codex Ten. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription. |
Key phrases
Older messages
Galton, Ehrlich, Buck
Monday, May 15, 2023
An exploding generational bomb
Open Thread 276
Sunday, May 14, 2023
...
Highlights From The Comments On Long COVID And Bisexuality
Friday, May 12, 2023
...
Highlights From The Comments On Housing Density And Prices
Wednesday, May 10, 2023
...
Constitutional AI: RLHF On Steroids
Monday, May 8, 2023
...
You Might Also Like
This Is My Cardboard Bed
Wednesday, April 24, 2024
Here's What You Missed on the Strategist The Strategist Every product is independently selected by editors. If you buy something through our links, New York may earn an affiliate commission. This
How to Beat the Market 3:1
Tuesday, April 23, 2024
This advisory has returned a massive 838% since inception compared to the 273% return from the S&P 500 View in browser Fellow Investor, My father Malcolm taught me never to let a good opportunity
I’m as smooth as a seal
Tuesday, April 23, 2024
The best body razor ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
Mehdi Hasan Is the ‘Debate Me’ Bro
Tuesday, April 23, 2024
Columns and commentary on news, politics, business, and technology from the Intelligencer team. Intelligencer the media The 'Debate Me' Bro Mehdi Hasan's aggressive interviewing style
How Android Intelligence built a thriving paid membership
Tuesday, April 23, 2024
When JR Raphael launched his Android Intelligence newsletter in 2018, it was mainly a roundup of news meant to complement his Computerworld column of the same name. But as the newsletter amassed an
This is not your typical email from The Intercept
Tuesday, April 23, 2024
You don't usually hear from me, but my name is Michael Sherrard, and I'm the person at The Intercept in charge of making sure we meet our membership fundraising goals. You don't usually
Wednesday Briefing: Senate votes on Ukraine aid
Tuesday, April 23, 2024
Also, a former tabloid publisher testifies against Donald Trump. View in browser|nytimes.com Continue reading the main story Ad Morning Briefing: Asia Pacific Edition April 24, 2024 Author Headshot By
Coming Up! Civic Engagement & Social Entrepreneurship on May 5, 2024!
Tuesday, April 23, 2024
This extraordinary community event is free and open to the public GeekWire is pleased to present this special sponsored message to our Pacific NW readers. SAAS Summit: Civic Engagement & Social
Surfin MIA
Tuesday, April 23, 2024
Life Beyond Search, Trump's Tab Low ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
Big FTC news today: Noncompetes
Tuesday, April 23, 2024
Vote passes. Real change will take years. ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏