[pkoird]

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't tenure something that's given to a professor, who, essentially, is a person that teaches? I should think that loving one's profession can only go so far when the profession doesn't love you back.

[dwohnitmok]

Professors at research universities (which are for better or worse usually the most prestigious universities) are generally expected to perform novel research, with teaching as a secondary duty (which is usually given much less weight than research output for tenure consideration). Hence tenure is mainly given in furtherance of protecting a professor's ability to perform novel research, not teaching.

The article itself points this out.

> Academics are rewarded for one thing and one thing only: research.... I knew this, of course, and it tormented me. But, to quote a phrase, I could do no other.

I'm inclined to agree with djoldman here. It's one thing to claim that research universities perform research poorly (and there are a lot of reasons why this is the case), but it's another to be disappointed that research universities mainly value, well, research. That's what they say they do on the tin!

There's a bitter lesson in realizing just because someone likes doing an activity A doesn't mean that same person will enjoy doing research about activity A (and vice versa!).

[musicale]

> with teaching as a secondary duty

Usually the top priorities at a research university are:

1. Fundraising. 2. Research (in support of 1)

In the humanities, tenure track positions usually only open up when someone dies or retires, assuming the slot is not also retired, and there will be hundreds of applicants for each position.

The academic pyramid is unsustainable since faculty usually supervise (and graduate) multiple Ph.D. students before dying or retiring.

But it is disappointing to hear that Yale's "tenure track" has a high failure rate. It seems like an incredible waste of people's lives.