next »

[the_walrus]

Not surprisingly, the UK system has far more people who really ought to be shown the door, especially in the lesser universities.

This has actually not been my impression.  My uni, at least, seems to be very good about using ERVS as an "incentive" to get rid of those people who aren't pulling their weight.  But perhaps that's just my uni.

[mingus]

People get excited when there is program closure in an RG university, but I suspect it happens more often than is thought.  Just looking at a random 10 of the newer universities, I notice that quite a few programs that they had 15 or so years ago have disappeared: how many, for example, still run degree programs in maths, physics, chemistry, etc.?  And I have looked just at the scientific areas ...  I would not be surprised to find something similar among the lesser universities in the USA; it's just that there are so many unis there that some things just get lost in the general "stream".

[mingus]

Not surprisingly, the UK system has far more people who really ought to be shown the door, especially in the lesser universities.

This has actually not been my impression.  My uni, at least, seems to be very good about using ERVS as an "incentive" to get rid of those people who aren't pulling their weight.  But perhaps that's just my uni.

Incidentally, even "probation" is relatively new in the UK system.  Indeed, some of the newer universities still do not have such a thing.  HE as a boondoggle!

[drspouse]

Until recently, probation in the UK was trivial, and very easy to pass, while my understanding of the tenure track (to which it is somewhat equivalent) was that it was infinitely more painful and rigorous.

The rigorousness of the probation process in the UK has increased somewhat, though the policies one case locally that refused to pass someone's probation unless they obtained an RCUK grant (rather than applying for one or more, as had been the case previously) appear (again at least locally) to have been reined in.

It is more or less recognised in the UK that junior academics can put in many hours on research, collect scads of data, submit grant applications and high impact factor papers left right and centre, but not get any such grants or publications.  It is also usually a short (c.1-2y) time-limited process (it's unusual to have it extended - pass or you're out). Often the only firm requirement is to complete the short qualification on teaching/learning.

Although we don't have the kind of tenure that prevents someone from being laid off if their department (and hence their job) no longer exists, any more, when people say we "don't have tenure in the UK" it sometimes means we don't have the horrendous tenure track/application for tenure procedures that exist in the US.

[fourhats]

From the Times Higher Education Supplement:  "Tenure was abolished in 1988 under Margaret Thatcher."  This information is repeated on numerous sites.  Professors in the UK often repeat this fact to me, and university contracts often stipulate that the person can be let go with notice, even after passing probation.  So as I understand it, tenure as it exists in the US isn't the same as being post-probation in the UK.  Is the actual word "tenure" used in the UK, or in any of their contracts or legal documents?

[mingus]

From the Times Higher Education Supplement:  "Tenure was abolished in 1988 under Margaret Thatcher."  This information is repeated on numerous sites.  Professors in the UK often repeat this fact to me, and university contracts often stipulate that the person can be let go with notice, even after passing probation.  So as I understand it, tenure as it exists in the US isn't the same as being post-probation in the UK.  Is the actual word "tenure" used in the UK, or in any of their contracts or legal documents?

Again, the question: What are the practical differences in security of tenure between a "tenured" academic in the USA and a post-probationary academic in the UK?  What people say and the language used by the media is largely irrelevant to answering that question.  And if you are an academic, you should be capable of better analysis that "I heard" or "I read".

A post-probationary academic in the UK can lose his/her job becasue of gross misconduct or the closure of a program.  But that is equally true of a tenured academic in the USA.  So how exactly do you "understand it"?

[theblondeassassin]

Is the actual word "tenure" used in the UK, or in any of their contracts or legal documents?

Yes.

Strictly speaking, "tenure" denotes the right to hold something (such as a job or a freehold), but not necessarily an unqualified right (except perhaps for those with divinely-conferred rights such as popes and emperors).

Custom and practices vary around the extent to which such a right may be revoked and who has the right to revoke it.

As pointed out recently in the Fora, the greater allocation of employment rights in the EU to employees (e.g., the right to sue for constructive dismissal) mitigates the stark contrast between "tenured" and "not tenured" in the US created by "employment at will".

I would consider my "appointment to the retirement age" to be at least a weak form of tenure, but the previous strong system of "tenure" in the UK, which conveyed rights until death (or in some cases, after death to one's surviving spouse), was destroyed by Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph (see for example Decline of Donnish Dominion).

[secretlistener]

A post-probationary academic in the UK can lose his/her job becasue of gross misconduct or the closure of a program.

I am not sure these are the only situations where a post-probationary academic in the UK can lose his/her job. I suspect it may be enough that a department is in serious financial struggle without actually being closed - at least I heard about at least one such case. This is a big difference because presumably there a significantly more cases of struggling departments than closing ones.

[qrypt]

A post-probationary academic in the UK can lose his/her job becasue of gross misconduct or the closure of a program.

I am not sure these are the only situations where a post-probationary academic in the UK can lose his/her job. I suspect it may be enough that a department is in serious financial struggle without actually being closed - at least I heard about at least one such case. This is a big difference because presumably there a significantly more cases of struggling departments than closing ones.

Yes -- it isn't necessary that a department be closed -- academics can be sacked if a university decides that there will be a reduction in the level of activity of a unit. 

The idea that the 1987 reforms had no impact is simply wrong.  That impact can be overstated -- it's not as if there was perfect employment protection before 1987 and no protection whatsoever afterwards.  Even so, protections were weakened in some significant ways. 

[mingus]

A post-probationary academic in the UK can lose his/her job becasue of gross misconduct or the closure of a program.

I am not sure these are the only situations where a post-probationary academic in the UK can lose his/her job. I suspect it may be enough that a department is in serious financial struggle without actually being closed - at least I heard about at least one such case. This is a big difference because presumably there a significantly more cases of struggling departments than closing ones.

And you read only where?