The problem isn't that tenure is bad once you have it. It's that the chimera of future security stops young scholars from doing controversial* research.
For 20 years, you say to yourself: I can do that once I have tenure! But once you do, you're far too used to playing the game.
For 20 years, you say to yourself: I can do that once I have tenure! But once you do, you're far too used to playing the game.
* Controversial can mean all kinds of seemingly small things here - including such trivial examples as an unfashionable research methodology or challenging a scholarly consensus established by a powerful player in a specific subfield.
This doesn't mean I'm against tenure all things considered; I'm torn.
But something like the British system, where you have a form of quasi-tenure much earlier on - a lot more security before this one decision-point, but a little bit less after - isn't obviously worsee.
But something like the British system, where you have a form of quasi-tenure much earlier on - a lot more security before this one decision-point, but a little bit less after - isn't obviously worsee.
